Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time and thank him for his great leadership in this Congress. I know that we will continue to be well-served by him until the last day of this Congress and we will be the beneficiaries of his legacy for a long time to come. I thank him again for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today is a good day, not a great day but a good day for the American worker. It is a day that the Republican leadership has finally been dragged kicking and screaming in support of raising the minimum wage. Democrats can be proud that at long last the pressure that we have brought to bear on Republicans has finally produced real results for 12 million working Americans. The Republicans have finally caved after months of staunch opposition-voting five times to defeat Democratic efforts to bring up an increase in the minimum wage. Even with polls showing over 80 percent of the American people support increasing the minimum wage, the extreme Republican majority tried to kill the bill or gut the bill and blunt its impact. These delaying tactics cost American workers $5.6 billion. Faced with the failure of their extreme agenda, moderate Republicans finally have embraced this Democratic initiative, but in the meantime the American worker has paid the price for Republican extremism. By refusing to take action on the minimum wage sooner, Republicans have cost American workers, as I have said, $5.6 billion in lost wages. That increase in the minimum wage would have paid for 3\1/2\ months of groceries, 6 months of health care, 4\1/2\ months of utility bills or 2 months of housing. Too bad it took 18 months to shame Republicans into doing the right thing and raising the minimum wage from a 40-year low in purchasing power. House Republican leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], has said, and we have quoted him many times, that he would fight an increase in the minimum wage with every fiber of his being. That was an earlier statement. As recently as Monday he blasted the minimum wage increase yet again saying that it was not a matter of importance to real people and dismissing it as an inside-the-beltway issue. I urge our colleagues to recognize the importance of the Democratic effort and increase the minimum wage.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong opposition to this cynical attempt to drive a wedge into our society. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the legislation before us today. This bill is another battle in the war against children in this Congress. Eliminating bilingual education could increase dropout rates and hurt the ability of immigrant children to adapt successfully in this country. A quality education is the key to a better way of life. People come to this country in search of that better way of life. We can only benefit by providing opportunities for all people to become productive members of our society, especially young children with bright futures ahead of them. Everyone in this Nation wants the same things--security and opportunities for themselves and their children. This legislation is unnecessary, discriminatory, and would deny opportunities to everyone who is perceived to be different. This is an appropriate time to remember that our Nation was settled by those who spoke languages other than English. Their proud heritages are reflected in those who inhabit this beautiful and diverse country. The majority feels that a national language policy will fix what they deem to be a problem with our common language. Yet, according to the 1990 Census, English is spoken by 97 percent of the U.S. population. English as a second language classes are so popular that in Los Angeles instruction is available 24 hours a day. Waiting lists for ESL classes are overflowing with thousands of people. Language minorities fully understand and appreciate that it is imperative to learn English to succeed in this country and make determined efforts to do so. Yesterday this House voted to deny benefits and opportunities to legal immigrants. Today we are voting on this legislation to deny access to Government to language minorities. If this legislation passes, we make a mockery of our proud designation as a nation of immigrants. If this legislation passes, the message will ring loud and clear that this House does not value the richness or diversity of life experiences that are woven into the colorful fabric of our Nation. We cannot mandate narrowmindedness and discrimination. That is already in evidence in this country. So is the desire for language minorities to speak English. We don't need to mandate that either. If, as its proponents maintain, the purpose of this legislation is to give more language minorities a better chance to learn the English language, let's do something about it by increasing funding for bilingual education and ESL classes. This is nothing but xenophobic political posturing and I urge my colleagues to vote against this distinctly un-American legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on the Kennedy-Kassebaum health care legislation. While I would have much preferred the bill adopted by the Senate, the advantages of this conference agreement outweigh the drawbacks. This bill will be very helpful to Americans with preexisting conditions who may need to change jobs. It will allow them to move from one group insurance plan to another without coverage being excluded because of a preexisting condition. It will also allow people who lose their jobs to buy individual insurance without exclusion because of a preexisting condition. The bill contains an important provision which states that the results of genetic testing cannot be used as a finding of a preexisting condition. This is an important first step in protecting individuals from discrimination based on new genetic testing made possible by advances in biomedical research. The bill also expands on a provision important to me and my district. Several years ago, I introduced legislation which became law extending continuation group health coverage under COBRA to individuals found to be disabled at the time that they stopped working. Under the provision, these disabled individuals could remain in group coverage for 29 months--the time it takes to qualify for Medicare coverage. This bill improves this benefit by extending continuation coverage for those that become disabled during their initial COBRA coverage until they are covered under Medicare. In addition, this bill includes an important provision which allows individuals with terminal illness to receive accelerated death benefits--often called viatical settlements--as tax-exempt benefits rather than income. This provision would apply to settlements received after December 31, 1996. I am disappointed in the conference agreement for what this bill does not do. It does not make health insurance more affordable. In fact, the medical savings accounts portion of the bill--by taking the healthy and wealthy out of the insurance pool--may make health insurance more expensive. In addition, this bill does nothing about the ability of insurance companies to exclude types of treatment or cap coverage. The bill also eliminates the Domenici-Wellstone mental health parity provision and even a scaled-back compromise to expand mental health coverage. Responding to these needs is also part of what should be done to provide health care security. While this bill will help about 400,000 Americans with preexisting conditions who will benefit from the portability provisions, it will do nothing for uninsured Americans. The number of uninsured is projected to increase by another million in the next year. The welfare bill, passed by the House yesterday, will add even more people to the ranks of the uninsured. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote. Yet I am also compelled to comment on how much this bill has been weakened from the Kennedy- Kassebaum bill adopted by the Senate. We have a long way to go before achieving true health care reform.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. I rise in opposition to the welfare bill. If this bill passed today, it will be a victory for the political spin artists and a defeat for the infants and children of America. We all agree that the welfare system must be reformed. But we must make sure that that reform reduces poverty, not bashes poor people. The cuts in this bill will diminish the quality of life of children in poor families in America and will have a devastating impact on the economy of our cities. Food and nutrition cuts will result in increased hunger. Local government will be forced to pay for the Federal Government's abdication of responsibility. How can a country as great as America ignore the needs of America's infants and children who are born into poverty? The Bible tells us that to minister to the needs of God's children is an act of worship; to ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made them. Mr. Speaker, let us not go down that path today.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in support of his amendment. It is a wonderful thing in the House of Representatives that we are expressing all of this concern for the dolphin. Hopefully, this will carry over to the human species as well. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I rise in opposition to the legislation as it is and in the hopes that our colleagues will vote in support of the Studds amendment. As has been said, in 1990, environmental, animal and consumer activists won a victory with the advent of the dolphin-safe label for commercially sold tuna. No product can be labeled dolphin- safe if the tuna is caught by chasing, harassing or netting dolphins. The issue before the house tonight is about what can be labeled dolphin-safe. 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 less than 3,000, as has been indicated. 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. I call to the attention of my colleagues this chart which compares what the dolphin-safe label means. Under the bill, it means this. Under the public view, dolphin-safe means this. We have got to keep faith with the public in our truth-in- labeling. In fact almost any fishing activity would be termed dolphin-safe provided that no dolphins were observed to die during the catch. Dolphin populations have been depleted by as much as 80 percent. The dolphin-safe label stopped this trend and has proved one of the most successful consumer initiatives in U.S. history. Americans care about what is left of our natural resources and the threatened creatures who inhabit them. The Studds amendment maintains the integrity of the dolphin-safe sticker to the definition of the label. Dolphin-safe must mean that dolphins are safe and not injured or killed in the hunt for tuna. H.R. 2823 allows an increase in the dolphin deaths and unlimited injury and harassment of dolphin. That is by no means dolphin-safe. Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support the Studds amendment which would enable us to keep the promise made to the American people. The trade agreements would not result in the weakening of U.S. environmental laws. At the same time, it would help us live up to those trade obligations and protect dolphins. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Studds amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to H.R. 3820, the Republican campaign finance reform bill before us today. This bill only further solidify the stranglehold of special interests on our representative process. It is not true reform. It is interesting to note the manner in which the Republican leadership has handled this issue. With much fanfare they made the campaign finance reform bill the centerpiece of a proposed reform week. Just as the reform week turned out to be a sham, so too has this campaign finance reform bill. The American people want less, not more money in the electoral process. H.R. 3820, the Republican bill, increases the amount of money in the electoral process. It increases the amount a wealthy individual can give to a campaign, it increases the aggregate amount a wealthy individual can give to all campaigns in general, and it increases the amount that wealthy individuals can give to the parties. We must increase participation of average people in our country, not the participation of the wealthiest individuals and the participation of even more money. We do have a chance today to reform campaign finance, but it is through the passage of Representative Farr's campaign finance reform bill, not through the Republican campaign finance sham. The Democratic alternative being offered today reduces the amount of money in politics. It imposes a voluntary limit on campaign spending. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative, which is true campaign finance reform, and to oppose the Republican leadership's bill, which is a campaign finance promotion bill. It is time to deliver our system out of the hands of the special interests which control it and back into the hands of the American people. We have a responsibility to remove obstacles of participation in the electoral process for the American people. We can do that by passing the Farr legislation today and rejecting the Republican leadership sham.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for calling this special order, and for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, heeding his admonition and that of Mr. Gilman to be brief, I will associate myself with the remarks of our colleagues who went before, but just take a moment to immediately associate myself with the remark of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] who said that Ham was the best. That was part of my remarks, too. He was the best that our system had to offer. If there was an aristocracy in America, he would certainly be part of it, an American aristocrat, almost a contradiction in terms; not by dint of his birth, which goes back to the pre-Revolutionary days, his family was here in the pre-Revolutionary days of our Republic, nor also for his wealth, but by dint of his great dignity, his respect for the principles on which our country was founded, and his love for our country. Others have talked about his fight for civil rights, et cetera. I want to just acknowledge that he was a leader in fighting any and all forms of discrimination: discrimination in voting, discrimination in education, discrimination in housing, discrimination in the workplace, and discrimination against the disabled, which has been mentioned earlier. The legacy that he leaves here, as a person who was a champion of human rights throughout the world, is the legacy of respect for every person. He taught us about the issues, he taught us about the procedure, and he taught us about the respect that we must have for each other in this body. Over 12,000 people have served in the House of Representatives since its origin. I think each of us who served with Ham Fish have had a special privilege. I hope it is a comfort to Mary Ann and to the Fish family, the entire Fish family, that Ham's distinguished service was highly recognized with the many awards that he received in his life, for the reasons my colleagues have mentioned. I hope they are comforted by the fact that he was a recognized champion of human rights in America and throughout the world, and as I said, that every Member of this body who served with him over those many years will consider it a fortunate honor to have had that association, and that it will be part of our legacy that we were exposed to the greatness of Ham Fish. On behalf of many of my colleagues in California, whom time prevents from participating in this special order, and certainly on behalf of my own constituents, who benefited greatly from the leadership of Ham Fish, I extend my deepest condolences to Mary Ann and to the Fish family. I thank my colleague from New York for yielding me this time and his leadership.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct and reject the idea of putting more children into poverty. Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that the welfare status quo is unacceptable. But the Republican welfare reform proposal will make the problems of poverty and dependence much worse because it refuses to make work the cornerstone of welfare reform. Real welfare reform is about work. Opportunities for work, jobs that pay a living wage, job training opportunities to provide skills necessary to earn a living wage are long term solutions for a permanent and productive reform in our welfare system. Real welfare reform must emphasize the importance of work. Real welfare reform must also aid rather than punish children. In the United States, 14 million children live in poverty. Passage of this legislation would add millions more to that statistic. This welfare bill is punitive and unrealistic. Abolishing the safety net for children, imposing family caps, denying legal immigrants benefits, imposing arbitrary time limits and failing to provide adequate child care, health care, education, job training, and work opportunities for people in need will thrust millions more into poverty. This bill cuts almost $60 billion from the poor in this country. These cuts will affect children whose parents are on welfare. These cuts will trap countless women in abusive relationships, with nowhere to turn--without a realistic way to gain independence, gain work, and provide for their children. Welfare reform must be about education, job training, and work. We must keep families together, rather than ripping them apart. We cannot simply reduce the deficit at the cost of our poorest Americans. This proposal has little wisdom, conscience, or heart. Some of my colleagues will vote for this bill and then wash their hands of welfare reform, saying they have done their job. But the job of welfare reform is more complex and dire. People living in poverty are not cardboard cutouts: they do not have the same stories, they do not need the same services. This bill treats everyone alike, with unrealistic time limits and no real lasting and effective plan to move welfare recipients to work at a living wage. The denial of benefits to legal immigrants in this legislation will do great harm to children and have a devastating impact on the health care system in our country. Only 3.9 percent of immigrants, who come to the United States to join their families or to work, rely on public assistance compared to 4.2 percent of native-born citizens. According to the Urban Institute, immigrants pay $25 billion more annually than they receive in benefits. Yet the myth persists that welfare benefits are the primary purpose for immigration to the United States. Instead of appreciating legal immigrants for their signficant contributions to this, their adopted country, this bill blatantly punishes them, especially young children and the elderly. It bans SSI and food stamps for virtually all legal immigrants. It tosses aside people who pay taxes, serve our country, and play by the rules. This lacks compassion and common sense. If we want to achieve real welfare reform, we need to offer some long-term solutions to help people move up and out from the cycle of poverty. The current welfare system is not adequate, but this bill makes it far worse. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican bill and work together for meaningful reform that puts people to work and pulls them out of poverty for good.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Mollohan amendment to restore funding to the Legal Services Corporation. Among its services, the LSC provides crucial legal assistance for victims of domestic violence. Over 1 million women a year are victims of violence by husbands or boyfriends. Domestic violence is a problem at all income levels, and legal services clinics are often the only means by which low-income women can legally protect themselves from their batteries. Legal Services assist victims of domestic violence in a variety of ways, including obtaining protection orders, child support, child custody, divorces from abusive spouses, and emergency housing. San Fernando Valley Legal Services estimates that, as a result of reduction in staff because of these cuts, at least 1,000 victims of domestic violence in that area alone will be denied assistance in obtaining emergency temporary restraining orders. This Congress has shown a strong bipartisan commitment to important implications for the future. I urge you to support the Mollohan-Fox amendment to restore funding to the Legal Services Corporation.

Ms. PELOSI

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the committee for their cooperation on this. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Representative Porter to increase the funding for international broadcasting to $9.3 million. This funding is urgently needed for the Asia Pacific Network/Radio Free Asia. We have seen the success of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty in broadcasting the message of freedom and democratic principles to people fighting for freedom. Radio Free Asia which has been designed to emulate Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's success, is now critical to the efforts of those in Asia struggling against authoritarian leaders. In 1991, Radio Free Asia was endorsed by President Bush's Task Force on U.S. Government International Broadcasting. In 1992, it was endorsed by the Congressional Commission on Broadcasting to the People's Republic of China, which recommended the establishment of a new broadcasting service. President Clinton identified Radio Free Asia as a centerpiece of his new China policy when he delinked trade from human rights in 1994. Unfortunately, the real commitment to establishing this important service has been lacking. Some may ask why we need APN/RFA when we have the Voice of America. The answer is independence. VOA is an official broadcasting service of the United States Government. In terms of its editorial orientation, VOA serves as an instrument to project U.S. policy at a particular time. Given that the State Department's goal is generally the maintenance of bilateral relations between the United States and any other country, it is unrealistic to expect the State Department to encourage, or even to support, a surrogate radio station which may be viewed with disapproval by the other country. Working within our overall objectives of promoting democratic freedoms, human rights, and open markets, APN/Radio Free Asia must have the independence to broadcast its own message. This independence is beneficial both to the radio, which is freed from political interference in its message; it is also beneficial to the State Department, which can disavow any connection to the broadcasts coming from APN/RFA. The fiscal year 1997 Commerce-Justice-State bill would have cut funding for APN/RFA by 50 percent to $5 million. This major cut would seriously undermine the program. I understand the concerns of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Mollohan. However, in all fairness, I would like to note for the Record that the members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors were not sworn in until September 1995. At that time, they immediately hired a distinguished China scholar, Orville Schell, to undertake a preliminary report on APN/RFA, which was submitted, on time, in November 1995. At that time, the Board started the search for a director. They chose Richard Richter, who started on March 12. He then hired a distinguished journalist, Dan Southerland, who was brought on to focus on content. Mr. Southerland started during the second week of July. APN/RFA's budget has now been completed and is being reviewed by OMB. The target date for starting to broadcast is September 22. Things are on track at APN/RFA. Cutting the funding now will pull the rug out from under the program. We, as a Nation, can and must help those fighting for freedom in Asia. I do not believe that many of my colleagues fully understand the lock on information which China's dictators maintain. The vast majority of people in China still only hear what China's government wants them to hear, they only see what the government wants them to see, they only read what the government allows them to read. It is through this stranglehold on information that the Chinese government is so successful in fueling growing nationalism. There are no independent voices in China. Those who speak out are arrested, exiled or killed. Radio Free Asia is an important instrument to help to break the Chinese government' stranglehold on news. It can provide an effective and peaceful mechanism to provide news of reform in China and of freedom around the world. It can promote democratic reforms, human rights and basic freedom. I thank Mr. Rogers and Mr. Mollohan for their support of the Porter amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues in marking the 22d year of Turkey's illegal invasion and partition of the Republic of Cyprus. I commend Mr. Bilirakis for his diligence on this issue and thank him for calling this special order. This anniversary is not a happy occasion, Mr. Speaker, but it is one which serves to remind us of the continuing strife that the people of Cyprus have faced day-in and day-out for over two decades. In 1974, using United States military equipment, Turkey invaded the Republic of Cyprus, killing 4,000 Greek Cypriots and capturing over 1,600 others, including 5 United States citizens. Though the Turkish Government has been condemned by this Congress and the international community time and time again, it has not halted its unjustified occupation. Today, Cyprus remains cruelly divided. A barbed-wire fence known as the green line cuts across the island separating thousands of Greek Cypriots from the towns and communities in which they and their families had previously lived for generations. The human rights violations by the Turkish Government on the people of Cyprus also continue. The freedoms of religion and assembly are frequently stifled, and intimidation by the military is ongoing and ever present. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate today for us to reiterate our commitment to a resolution of the Cypriot situation, and to commend Greek Cypriots for their dedication to a peaceful settlement of the island's armed conflict. A peaceful resolution of this conflict is long overdue.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, we can all agree that the welfare status quo is unacceptable. But the Republican welfare reform proposal will make the problems of poverty and dependence much worse because it refuses to make work the cornerstone of welfare reform. Real welfare reform is about work. Opportunities for work, jobs that pay a living wage, job training opportunities to provide skills necessary to earn a living wage are long-term solutions for a permanent and productive reform in our welfare system. Real welfare reform must emphasize the importance of work. Real welfare reform must also aid rather than punish children. Fourteen million children live in poverty in the United States. Passage of this legislation would add millions more to that statistic. This welfare bill is punitive and unrealistic. Abolishing the safety net for children, imposing family caps, denying legal immigrants benefits, imposing arbitrary time limits, and failing to provide adequate child care, health care, education, job training, and work opportunities for people in need will thrust millions more into poverty. This bill cuts almost $60 billion from the poor in this country. These cuts will affect children whose parents are on welfare. These cuts will trap countless women in abusive relationships, with nowhere to turn--without a realistic way to gain independence, gain work, and provide for their children. Welfare reform must be about education, job training, and work. We must keep families together, rather than ripping them apart. We cannot simply reduce the deficit at the cost of our poorest Americans. This proposal has little wisdom, conscience, or heart. Some of my colleagues will vote for this bill and then wash their hands of welfare reform, saying they have done their job. But the job of welfare reform is more complex and dire. People living in poverty are not cardboard cutouts--they do not have the same stories, they do not need the same services. This bill treats everyone alike--with unrealistic time limits and no real, lasting, and effective plan to move welfare recipients to work at a living wage. The denial of benefits to legal immigrants in this legislation will do great harm to children and have a devastative impact on the health care system in our country. Only 3.9 percent of immigrants, who come to the United States to join their families or to work, rely on public assistance, compared to 4.2 percent of native-born citizens. According to the Urban Institute, immigrants pay $25 billion more annually than they receive in benefits. Yet the myth persists that welfare benefits are the primary purpose for immigration to the United States. Instead of appreciating legal immigrants for their significant contributions to this, their adopted country, this bill blatantly punishes them, especially young children and the elderly. It bans SSI and food stamps for virtually all legal immigrants. It tosses aside people who pay taxes, serve our country, and play by the rules. This lacks compassion and common sense. If we want to achieve real welfare reform, we need to offer some long-term solutions to help people move up and out from the cycle of poverty. The current welfare system is not adequate, but this bill makes it far worse. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican bill and work together for meaningful reform that puts people to work and pulls them out of poverty for good.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Jack Jacqua and Joe Marshall of the Omega Boys Club in San Francisco on their recent award of the National Education Association's Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Award. The unrelenting determination and perseverance and faith of these two extraordinary men have succeeded in building the Omega Boys' Club from 15 members to 500 since the club's inception in 1987. The Omega Boys' Club motivates at-risk youth to reject violence, succeed academically, gain adminission to college, offers employment and entrepreneurship training, adult and peer counseling, and affords them and important support network to get them off the streets and onto a successful life through higher learning. One hundred members of the Omega Boys' Club are currently enrolled at institutions of higher learning throughout the country. Omega not only helped them achieve the funding to go to school, it also gave them the tools, the skills and the support network essential to achieve great things. Jack Jacqua has been described as a surrogate father to many Potrero Hill families. Coming to Potrero Hill Middle School in 1973, he was compelled to challenge the drift afflicting students receiving the least encouragement and attention. ``I'd like to see their lives have purpose and direction * * * All they need is for someone to care.'' Joe Marshall, co-founder and father of the Omega Boys Club, hosts a weekly radio talk show for at risk youth and tours the country telling the inspirational Omega story. His belief and commitment to young people knows no limits, and at-risk youth have thrived under his care and direction. These two men are heroes in the tradition of Martin Luther King, Jr.--recognized leaders who utilize outreach, education, and counseling to show young people that there are worthy alternatives to violence in their communities. Mr. Speaker, I salute Jack and Joe and wish them all the best as they continue their important, award-winning work with youth at the Omega Boys Club. This award is just one of many they greatly deserve for turning the lives of at-risk young people around.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the 25th anniversary of the Bayview Hunters Point Multipurpose Senior Center. On July 7, 1971, an extraordinary group of San Francisco citizens recognized the need to provide services dedicated to the senior residents in the Hunters Point neighborhood of San Francisco. The vision of mother Mattie Kemp and the center's founders has grown into a center that provides comprehensive services for the Bayview senior community. The center is a compassionate environment where seniors can receive basic health screening, legal assistance and social and recreational opportunities. For the past 18 years the center has flourished under the dedicated and caring stewardship of Dr. George Davis, Ph.D. His boundless commitment to providing quality programs for the elderly has led the Bayview Multipurpose Senior Center to be a model program in the city of San Francisco. The efforts of Dr. Davis, the staff and clients of the senior center remind us that we cannot forget the critical need for centers such as the Bayview Hunters Point Multipurpose Center. Our seniors provide an important thread in the fabric of our communities. It is imperative that we continue to support the work of the Bayview Hunters Point Center to ensure the continued vitality of these special individuals. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, July 13, 1996, the Bayview Hunters Point Community will hold a parade and street fair to recognize the contributions of this important community resource. Let us join the Bayview Hunters Point community in their celebration of the community's seniors and the people dedicated to continuing the legacy of the Bayview Hunters Point Multipurpose Senior Center.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman from California accused me of contradicting myself, I want to make the point that he did not clarify. That point is, yes, abortion on demand is not something we support in this House. Abortion on demand is not what is before the body today. Abortion on demand is abortion up until the ninth month. We are not talking about or supporting that. The gentleman knows it.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoyer amendment striking provisions which restrict funding for abortion coverage for the Federal employee health benefit plan. This language in the bill makes second class citizens of our Federal employees. I am going to submit my original statement for the record and address a couple of the points made by our colleagues in the course of the debate. This debate is not about abortion on demand. I do not know one Member of this body who supports abortion on demand. Second, when our colleagues on the other side say that this is about stopping a taxpayer subsidy of abortion because of the contribution that the Federal Government makes to the health care plan, I want to remind our colleagues that the Federal Government subsidizes every employer basic health care plan in America because it is a business expense for private employers. What is next? Do we move next from preventing Federal employees from having a right to full reproductive freedoms in their health care plan to preventing every working woman in America from having access to reproductive freedom because the argument will be made that the Federal Government is subsidizing it by giving a tax deduction to her employer. I urge my colleagues to support the Hoyer amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I just want to follow up on the previous exchange. Why should this women who is a Federal employee have to document that the pregnancy was a product of a rape? This is an invasion of the privacy of women; it is an attempt to limit a woman's access to reproductive freedom. That is the issue that is before the House today. Anything else is just a diversion. Reducing a woman's right to choose is the reality: Cutting back on a woman's right to choose. A women should not have to document the cause of the pregnancy. Mr. Chairman, our colleagues have never really caught on to that point as an invasion of privacy.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time and again for her leadership in bringing this amendment to the floor. Please let us not have this body turn into the Flat Earth Society. Just when science sees a new horizon in research, a new era of discovery, this amendment wants us to stop and turn back. Let me say that I agree with our colleagues who say that we should not be involved in the creation of embryos for research. I completely agree with my colleagues on that score. But when embryos are created for in vitro fertilization and there is an opportunity to do research on the excess created there for that purpose, to produce a child, then we must, I think, take advantage of the opportunity presented to us. Early-stage embryos research can lead to important medical advances and prevention of loss of pregnancy, of infertility and diagnosis and treatment of genetic disease and prevention of birth defects and in treatment of childhood and other cancers as we study how cells multiply. I urge our colleagues to support the Lowey amendment and to support the advances in science as we approach a new century.

Ms. PELOSI. It is so we could yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey amendment to restore funding to the Women's Educational Equity Act. We have talked much in this Congress about preparing our children for the future and teaching personal responsibility. The programs administered under the Women's Educational Equity Act, in place for the last 20 years, have made great strides to accomplish these goals for girls. Girls and young women face a number of real and serious obstacles that often keep them from reaching their full potential, such as lack of skills or self-confidence, teen pregnancy, sexual harassment, violence in the classroom, and intentional and unintentional sex discrimination. Through projects and outreach programs, girls learn job skills for traditional and for nontraditional, high-paying careers. They learn to reject the notion of traditional employment for women and embrace education in a variety of fields. It is sad but true that girls and women still need to be told in our society that they are capable of anything. These programs helps girls become confident, educated and self-sufficient. They remind and encourage girls that they can become self-sufficient adults who make a great contribution--our scientists, world leaders, working mothers, Members of Congress. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, for the sake of the future of your daughters and granddaughters, to vote for the Lowey amendment to restore funding to this important program.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank our distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time and also thank him for his leadership. This is a very important amendment because if there were nothing else wrong with this Labor-HHS bill there would still be three reasons, as I said yesterday, to vote against it: Education cuts, education cuts, education cuts. The needs of our children and our schools are increasing rapidly and that this House is willing to shortchange them is shortsighted. Our children deserve better. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Committee on Appropriations voted to cut the President's request for funding for education by $2.8 billion. The Obey amendment would restore funding for some of the education and training programs that have been frozen, cut, or eliminated in this bill. I am also pleased that the Obey amendment contains $100 million for dislocated worker training. This is a particularly difficult time for Congress to be freezing or cutting funds for dislocated worker training when workers are dislocated by virtue of trade and downsizing. I should not say virtue, but because of trade, downsizing, or technology. It is just exactly the wrong time for us to be cutting funding for their relocation and their training. I am pleased also that there are funds for summer youth training. Some of those positions are restored, 16,000, even though the committee cut 79,000 summer job training positions. Of course, I am pleased with the increased funding that the Obey amendment provides for Head Start, Goals 2000, and title I. Much has been said on the floor today about the Federal role in education, and over and over in the course of the debate in the committee, full committee, and here, about the fact that the Federal role is 5 percent of education funding in our country. Indeed, it is only 5 percent, but it is an important 5 percent, and under this legislation, as has been presented here today, we, this Congress of the United States, would not even be able to sustain that small responsibility as important as it is to our Nation's children. Our children deserve to learn in a safe and drug free environment, to arrive at school ready to learn, to fully develop basic skills like reading and math, to have expanded access to new technologies, to be taught by well prepared teachers, to support higher education and to learn the appropriate skills to succeed in the 21st century workplace. Sometimes it is difficult for some of us to understand when we have helped to teach our children to read and write that some children do not have that assistance at home. Title I helps provide that for children, and I am so pleased that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has found a way to increase the funding for title I. We are beholden as public servants, I believe, to provide these opportunities for our children. If we do not display this commitment, we are destined to slam head first into a crisis in education and a down turn in our Nation's productivity. By this fall, 52 million students will be enrolled in elementary and secondary education schools. Local education budgets are stretched to the limits. Ask any local educator. Education is not just a local responsibility, however, and I addressed earlier the 5 percent that we provide that is very essential. It is the responsibility of all of us, and if we do not live up to it, our children will suffer great consequences. The education of our children is at great risk. In my view, our Federal commitment to education is a measure of our sincerity about economic success, social progress, and our children's future. I hope our colleagues agree and that they will support this amendment. So many times in the course of the appropriations bill we have to refer to the budget allocation that our chairman receives. He deserves credit on making the best of our allocation. Even so, I think we should keep our priorities in line with children first and support the Obey amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, Mr. Chairman, and for her leadership in bringing this important amendment to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support it. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control provides the Nation with information that is crucial, reliable, and well-respected among experts about the incidence of and extent to which injuries, including those which result from automobile accidents, fires, domestic violence, bicycle accidents, and guns affect our lives, and identify strategies for reducing these injuries, many of which are fatal. The Lowey amendment addresses the problem the committee created in symbolic action that will have real effects on America's children and families when it eliminated funds. The gun injury crisis facing our Nation, especially our children, must not be ignored and cannot be hidden. Firearms violence from homicides, suicide, or, and this is important, accidental shootings, killed 5,751 children aged 1 to 19 in 1993. Child deaths from guns in a year are the equivalent of more than the deaths of 205 classrooms of children. We need CDC research and expertise to help inform the Nation, to help gun owners have safety. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, later this morning the House will vote on my amendment to the Labor, HHS bill which would strike the extreme rider which ties OSHA's hands on reptitive motion injuries and prohibits them from even developing voluntary guidelines. This extreme rider prohibits even, as I say, voluntarily guidelines requested by many concerned businesses and would prohibit the collection of data on the frequency of such injuries. Mr. Speaker, repetitive stress injuries are the fastest growing health problem in the American workplace. This year 2.7 million workers will file workers compensation claims for repetitive motion injuries costing Americans employers at least $20 billion. Nonetheless, OSHA would be prohibited from even answering questions about how to prevent these injuries. Adopting my reasonable amendment would help businesses reduce their workers compensation costs, reduce injuries to the American worker and increase U.S. productivity in the workplace. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment on ergonomics.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his strong leadership on this important issue and other issues of civil and human rights in this country and throughout the world. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-named Defense of Marriage Act and I do so on the basis of conscience, Constitution and constituency. This legislation in terms of the Constitution, I believe, violates the spirit of the Constitution's full faith and credit clause as well as its equal protection provisions. It also is quite ironic to me that the Republican Party, which is a strong advocate for States' rights, now wants to override the will of the States and this is all in the hypothetical at that. As a matter of conscience, I am opposed to this legislation because I believe it is a blatant act of discrimination. It is also disappointing that it is happening at this time because last week on the Fourth of July we celebrated our country's independence and our country's greatness. This week we are acting to diminish that greatness by saying to some members of our society that they are not equal under the law. Who is next? This bill is an insult to gays and lesbians in our country. Who is next? That brings me to my constituency. I have the privilege of representing the most diverse population of any district in the country. I know there will be those who say their districts are as diverse but I do not think anyone's is more diverse than mine. In my district, I can easily see and say that the beauty is in the mix. I want to be sure that the power is also in the mix, the power for all of those different people to make their own decisions about their personal lives, the power for them to reach their own fulfillment, newcomer or old guard, black, brown, white or yellow, gay or lesbian. Those decisions and that fulfillment include those affecting their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We value family in our community as a source of strength to our country and a source of comfort to our people. What constitutes that family is an individual and personal decision. But it is for all a place where people find love and support. If that happens to be with people living together of the same sex or of different sex, if it happens platonically or not, if it happens that they find comfort and love and support, God bless them. Let me tell you about two very special constituents of mine who have lived together for over 25 years. Their commitment, their love and their happiness are a source of strength to all who know them. Their relationship--I hold this up so you can all see--is not a threat to anyone's marriage. This is Phyllis Lyons and Dell Martin. Phyllis has two grandchildren. Phyllis and Dell have been leaders in our community and command the respect of all who know them. Why should they not be able to share each other's health and bereavement benefits? Why should they not be able to visit each other in the hospital in case of accident or in case of illness? I know people will say, you can sign up in advance and tell the doctor before you go in for the operation. That does not happen is you are in an accident. Why should they not be able to share a financial relationship inheritance, immigration, the list goes on and on. Why should they not have the full protection of the law? All of our community in our area are in debt to Phyllis and Dell for their contribution to the community, serving on commissions, they have been officially recognized over and over again in the course of their years of service. Tonight I am again in their debt for allowing me to share their personal history with you. I thank them for doing that, and I say to all of you, if you knew Phyllis and Dell and many hundreds of thousands of people that I know like them, why would you not want them to be treated equally? But I ask you to make a more personal question of yourselves. Should you find yourself in a situation where your children or your close relatives or your close friends find solace, happiness, comfort, love, support in a relationship that is appropriate for them, would you not want them to have the legal recognition that they deserve? It is not again a threat to anyone. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could go into what is a threat to marriage in this country, but with that I urge my colleagues to think carefully before discriminating against anyone in this country. I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.