Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call upon the leadership of the House to bring up legislation increasing the minimum wage, and in doing so I ask the question, how long does it take to earn $8,440? I call the attention of our colleagues to this cartoon, which states that it takes a full-time minimum-wage earner 1 year, while it takes the average CEO of a large U.S. corporation one-half a day. This cartoon is not funny and it is not fair. Yes, we salute the success of the entrepreneur and the businessperson. Yes, we recognize that business must make a profit. But in a country as great and as decent as ours, this cannot all be at the expense of exploiting our work force. For a minimum-wage earner a pay raise to $5.15 per hour would mean to have enough money for food, textbooks, simple things. We must raise the minimum wage to a decent living wage, to a wage that makes work pay. It is the political, economic and moral--yes, I repeat, moral issue of our day.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today we have before the House an agreement on the remaining spending bills for fiscal year 1996. This bill reflects significant movement in the right direction. I was pleased to work for many of the President's priorities as a member of the conference committee. Last year, the Republican Leadership made a conscious decision to hold priority programs for education, job training, and environmental protection hostage to their demands for tax cuts for the wealthy and deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. The Gingrich agenda has thrown the congressional budget process into chaos. This conference agreement is a great improvement over the extreme House bill. Yet, the priorities in spending for fiscal year 1996 are difficult to justify. At the same time the majority is providing $7 billion more than requested by the Pentagon for defense programs, they are cutting deeply into priority programs which invest in our Nation's future. Let me comment specifically on the conference agreement on the Labor- HHS-Education appropriations bill. This bill provides for some of the highest priority investments for our future--the health and education of the American people. The bill provides $64.5 billion in discretionary spending, a decrease of $2.6 billion from comparable 1995 spending and $7.5 billion less than the President's request. It is difficult not to comment on the judgement of moving $7 billion from priority education, job training, and health programs to new and unrequested defense spending. I clearly have a different view on how we should measure the strength of America. Nonetheless, The President must be commended for standing strong and insisting that the egregious cuts in the House bill be overturned to restore much needed funding for education, job training, and environmental protection. President Clinton's leadership on these priority domestic programs has made a real difference. The 17 percent cut to compensatory education has been reversed. The 57 percent cut to Safe and Drug Free Schools has been reversed. The elimination of Goals 2000 has been reversed. The elimination of the summer youth employment program has been reversed. Job training has been restored for more than 100,000 displaced American workers. Worker protections have been restored. Funding for the Ryan White CARE program has been increased. And, of the 17 riders to which the administration strongly objected 14 have been dropped and 3 have been modified. The majority of anti-environment riders to the bill have been removed or the President has been given waiver authority to stop their implementation. We should never again try to use the budget process as the engine for bad environmental policy that does not have the fuel to pass Congress standing alone. In addition, the bill restores the community policing program to fund 100,000 new police. And, the bill overturns the recently enacted requirement that HIV-infected service members be discharged. These changes are a great step forward. While this bill is a great improvement over the House-passed bill, it does contain two unjustified provisions to assist New Hampshire and Louisiana with their Medicaid programs. At the same time, very well justified provisions to assist California public hospitals were not considered. My hope is that the situation in California can be addressed in other legislation. Mr. Speaker, now is the time for the House leadership to commit itself to bipartisan solutions and an orderly budget process for 1997 so that we never again put the American people through the uncertainty reflected in passing the 1996 spending bills.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for yielding this time to me, and I also thank him for his leadership, for holding firm for the priorities for the American people. I also want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. If it had been left to our Chair and our ranking member, a long time ago this issue would have been resolved. We would not have had to have a Government shutdown. But I commend the President of the United States for holding firm to his commitment to education, to protecting the environment, and for LIHEAP, and the list goes on of priorities which have been respected in this spending bill. It also has a large number of cuts, and I am dismayed to see that it still has $7 billion more in there for defense, as we subject all of our spending to such scrutiny. But it is a good bill, it is a compromise, and best of all it eliminates the very mean-spirited, I say that advisedly, mean-spirited language in there for HIV-infected people in the military. Today is a victory for democracy and for compromise, and I thank our chairman and ranking member for their leadership.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in observing the anniversary of the Armenian genocide. I commend my colleagues, Mr. Pallone and Mr. Porter, who are leaders in this Congress on Armenian issues and thank them for organizing this special order to draw attention to the tragic slaughter of the Armenian people. On April 24, 1915, the Armenian people were subjected to a ruthless policy of deportation, property confiscation, slavery, and murder by the Ottoman Empire. This barbaric policy was unquestionably genocide. Over the 8 years between 1915 and 1923, 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children were killed and more than 500,000 more had been forcibly removed from the country. The Ottoman Empire and subsequent Turkish regime engaged in a systematic campaign to destroy cultural and religious monuments, change the names of locations and places, and deny the very existence of the Armenian people in this region. At the time, the world recognized this crime against humanity and organized a worldwide humanitarian relief effort under the leadership of the United States. It is time for us again to call attention to this genocide. I have recently joined my colleagues, Mr. Pallone and Mr. Porter, in sending a letter to President Clinton urging him to reaffirm the Armenian genocide as a crime against humanity. In addition, I was pleased to work with a number of my colleagues in including the provisions of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act in the 1996 foreign operations appropriations bill which has been signed into law. The Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act restricts United States aid to Turkey until the Turkish Government ceases its obstruction of United States humanitarian aid deliveries to Armenia. The foreign operations appropriations bill also provides funds to continue the United States program of humanitarian assistance to the Armenian people. The Armenian-American descendants of the Armenian exiles make a vibrant contribution to the life and energy of the San Francisco bay area. I join with them today in observing this anniversary of the Armenian genocide and in honoring the memory of their ancestors. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that as we remember these tragic events both of the Armenian genocide and of the Holocaust, we must remember that there are crimes against humanity that are being perpetrated today. The appropriate tribute to those who have given their lives in the past to these crimes against humanity is to make sure that these acts do not continue and that we must be ever vigilant and speak up against them. In the remainder of my time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to talk about the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all of us in this Chamber or all of us who serve in this Chamber would agree that the actions that we take here should serve to build family, to reward work, and to value the American worker. That is why it is so hard to understand why the Republican leadership in the House is hesitating, indeed has said they probably will not bring up legislation to increase the minimum wage. To remind our colleagues, a person who works full-time at the minimum wage makes $8,840 a year. In a two-earner household where both parents work, they bring home a rip-roaring $17,000 a year. For a family of four, this is below the poverty line and indeed below the line of dignity that we owe the American worker. I am disappointed that the Republican majority will not bring up an increase in the minimum wage, but I am further mystified by the Republican attempt to avoid raising the minimum wage by proposing something which they claim is an increase in the minimum wage combined with an expansion of the earned income tax credit. It is neither. It is simply an attempt to distract attention from the Republican failure to raise the wages of low-income families. The Republican proposal would cut the earned income tax credit. That means it would increase the tax, if there were a tax, which there is not, so it would serve to put fewer dollars in the pockets of the lowest income people in our country. It would create a three-tiered Federal payment for low-income workers. This is not only an insult to the American worker, but it is an insult to American business. We are saying to American businesses: We think you do not value the work that your workers do, so we are going to subsidize that work by having a government program to give you money to pay your workers, because obviously you do not value the contribution they make to your business. What is happening here? How could it be that the Republicans, who talk about reducing the size of government and to promote the free enterprise system, are talking about subsidizing the wages officially that are paid to workers? In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to once again call to our attention, and I am going to have this blown up for future presentation, how long does it take to make $8,840. The full-time minimum wage earner, 1 year. What a full-time minimum wage earner makes in 1 year, the average CEO of a large U.S. corporation makes in one half a day. How could this be fair? How could this be just? We salute their entrepreneurial spirit and their success, but we reject the injustice of it all.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the increase in the minimum wage. As probably has been mentioned on the floor here this afternoon, if an individual works full time, he or she brings home $8,400 a year. In a family of 4, if you have two wage earners working full time at the present minimum wage, they make, well, we can do the math, under $17,000 a year. How could it be that in a country this great and this decent that we do not pay a living wage to the hardworking people, hardworking families who want to do the best for their children. We must reward work and we must do it with a decent livable wage. I hope that this Congress will be increasing the minimum wage by at least $1, which would enable families to buy more groceries. We are talking about the basics. Another point I want to make about the minimum wage is that by keeping the minimum wage as low as it is, we are increasing the cost to the U.S. taxpayer. We have to provide food stamps, housing assistance, and other assistance to supplement the meager earnings that these people make, even though they are working full time, even welfare benefits I some cases. So this is not about reducing the deficit or anything else. It is about providing adequate rewards to Americans who work. There has been some discussion in the course of this year about the earned income tax credit. I believe that the cuts that were proposed for American working families were wrong. Our colleagues on the other side will say, no, we kept it in there. We kept it in for some but not for all of the people who were working, hoping to have families and contribute to our country. We have and we need an earned income tax credit because we have this artificially low minimum wage. The American taxpayer is subsidizing American business with food stamps, housing assistance, earned income tax credit, because we have such a low minimum wage. I saw a cartoon in the paper that I want to share with my colleagues. On one side it had a woman working for the minimum wage for 1 year, her salary, $8,400 a year, working full time, and in the other frame was an executive, and the average salary for corporate CEO's in our country would make, in 1 day, some say really in a half a day but let us be generous, in 1 day what this woman was making in 1 year. Certainly we want to reward success and we want to honor the entrepreneurial spirit. But how could it be OK for us to have one person working 1 day for the same as the average, and I am not talking about the highest, I am talking about the average corporate CEO's salary? I think it is a matter of conscience and decency, and a sign of a great country, that we reward work, we increased the morale of our work force, we give people a chance to take themselves out of poverty by saying we respect you, we respect what you do. We want to give you the dignity that you deserve as a hard-working person in our country. Not by throwing some crumbs to you and making you grovel for other benefits and be disdained for that, but instead by giving you a living wage.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comment on that. I was particularly concerned the majority leader, Mr. Armey, said he would fight the increase in the minimum wage with every fiber of his being. He is a good guy. Let us change his mind on that subject and show the support, which has always been bipartisan, has always been bipartisan, for an increase in the minimum wage.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow this country will pause in sorrowful remembrance as we observe the 1-year anniversary of the tragic bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. This incident shook the fabric of our Nation and illustrated the threat posed to us all by terrorism. Oklahoma City is the driving force behind the renewed push for anti-terrorism legislation. I believe we need an anti-terrorism bill. I do not believe that the conference report before us today is the anti-terrorism bill we need. We, as Members of Congress, have a particular responsibility to be the guardians of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That responsibility is not always easy and it is not always popular. It is, however, always necessary. I oppose this anti-terrorism bill because I believe some provisions in it violate the Constitution. If we pass it, we are ignoring our duty to guard the basic principles upon which our great Nation is founded. I oppose a number of provisions in this bill but will focus my remarks on my concerns about the habeas corpus reforms contained in it. To many people, habeas corpus sounds like an obscure legal phrase with minimal relevance to their lives. This misunderstanding could not be further from the truth. Habeas corpus is the mechanism by which a citizen in this Nation who is deprived of liberty can petition an independent court to test the legality of his or her detention. Habeas corpus safeguards our individual liberty and the bill before us today restricts habeas corpus appeals. The habeas corpus provisions in this bill are dangerous to ordinary citizens. They increase the risk that innocent persons could be held in prison in violation of the constitution, or even executed. For the first time, a use it or lose it approach is being applied to a basic constitutional right. Constitutional rights are not time-bound, they are timeless or they are worthless. The bill before us mandates strict habeas corpus filing deadlines that ordinary citizens, especially those lacking financial resources, may not be able to meet. It limits their right in almost all cases to only one round of Federal review, and severely limits the power that Federal courts have to correct unconstitutional incarceration. It cuts off most opportunities for incarcerated citizens to appeal to higher courts for relief. The habeas corpus provisions in this bill are reason enough to oppose it. They are certainly not the only thing wrong with this bill. I would also like to note for the record my concern about the bill's changes to asylum law which severely threaten our country's rich history of providing refuge for people fleeing persecution in their homelands. The bill eliminates the suspension of deportation for anyone who enters this country without inspection. It also establishes summary removal at ports of entry if people lack valid documents. Valid documents are often difficult to find or to protect in war-torn countries. As some of my colleagues know, I have been particularly concerned over the years about the plight of victims of rape, torture, and domestic violence. I am pleased that the Justice Department has a heightened sensibility to the particular problems faced by women who have experienced these crimes in their homelands. Rape is being used as a tool of terror and war in civil conflicts around the world. In many of these countries, rape victims may be unable to articulate immediately their fear of persecution, especially to a stranger who is usually a man. As a result of the provisions in this bill, these women, lacking documentation, will be summarily returned to their homelands. Mr. Speaker, I understand the need to fight terrorism and I can support anti-terrorism legislation which does so while preserving our precious constitutional rights. This conference report does not meet that test and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, last evening our colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Representative Eva Clayton, called a special order to honor the memory of and celebrate the life of Secretary of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. There were so many of us who wanted to participate that we have some overflow this evening. I am among those. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the gentlewoman in calling that special order. She asked us to focus not only on our personal, but our professional relationships with Ron Brown in remembering him. First, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that our country suffered a staggering tragedy with the loss of our distinguished Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown. How he would enjoy seeing some of the tributes to him that were written in the past week. The Washington Post says ``Best in the Business.'' Another headline, ``Brown, a Pioneer at Home In Black and White America. Ex-Party Chief Had Key Role in Clinton Win.'' Indeed he did. Another headline, ``Builder of Bridges.'' How he would like to have seen this headline, ``Devoted To Mission Until the End.'' ``Ron Brown's contribution to his people,'' ``Changing the face of America's executive suites, still lily white, is a tribute worthy of Brown.'' And the list goes on and on of Ron Brown's contributions. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown showed endearing enthusiasm for whatever task he undertook. How true that is. I call these to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and to the attention of our colleagues, because I know that Ron Brown would have enjoyed them. I hope that they are a source of comfort to the Brown family. Our colleague the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, when she made her presentation last evening mentioned some of the other people who, unfortunately, also lost their lives in the tragedy, and I would like to call attention to three others who I am familiar with. The First Lady attended the funeral of Adam Darling, an optimistic and interested person in politics who went on to work at the Commerce Department under Ron Brown's leadership. I note with particular sadness the death of Bill Morton, a dynamic and brilliant young man who devoted his life to advancing minorities in public service. And in our community in San Francisco, we are particularly grief stricken by the death of Don Terner, the BRIDGE Housing Corporation executive, who was a member of the delegation. Don Terner is a great lost to the San Francisco Bay Area and the affordable housing community nationwide. In his life, he gave dignity and hope to American families by providing shelter. Don Terner died as he had lived, bringing hope to people in need. Now I would like to return my focus to Secretary Ron Brown. I had the privilege of working with Ron Brown since the early eighties, when we worked together putting together the 1984 Democratic Convention in San Francisco, but also working on the delegate selection process. In the convention in 1992, I served as cochair with Governor Romer of the Platform Committee. I mention those two relationships with Ron because in both of those instances, whether it was participation in the party, in the delegate selection process, or whether it was policy formation in putting together a platform, Ron Brown gave no tolerance to discrimination. Our party would be open and our policy would be open to all people in our society. Indeed, I believe that is a hallmark of the Clinton administration, and Ron Brown's influence was surely felt there. I hope it is a comfort to all of the families of all of the people in the delegation, I hope it is a comfort to their loved ones that they are mourned by an entire Nation, that they died in a mission of peace, bringing humanitarian and economic assistance to the Balkans, and that their sacrifice will never be forgotten. I want to particularly commend Alma Brown and extend sympathy to her and to Michael and to Tracy, Ron and Alma's children. Across the world, people saw Alma Brown as dignified in her sadness. I happened to be in Indonesia when we got the news, and even at that distance, the press was one of great admiration and, of course, sympathy for Alma. But she led us through this tragic time, through this sadness, in a way that I know would have made Ron Brown very, very proud. But, of course, he knew that about Alma. So I would say that as we mourn, the leaders of the delegation, we must also remember the patriotic members of the military on the flight and the members of the Commerce Department staff. The prayers of my family I know will always be with the Brown family, as well as with the families of this mission of peace.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. That is why I am so pleased President Clinton has stood firm on this issue, in addition to education and some other issues, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, that the President has stood firm and said that we cannot proceed unless we have the basic health and well-being of the American people protected in how we go forward. I would like to elaborate on one point just for half a minute that I mentioned earlier, about a survey released last month in California by the California State Senate, refuting the claim that if you have environmental protection regulations you lose jobs. This report looked at every major study by Government, universities, and private think tanks since 1973. Not a single reputable study found a negative impact from environmental laws. In fact, environmental regulations have created jobs, particularly in manufacturing, transportation, and utility industries, and as I mentioned, there are other industries like the fishing industry which are totally dependent upon a protected environment. There have been a boom in jobs in environmental technologies and services. The report says California, speaking for my State, California alone will have 200,000 environmental workers by the end of the year. The environmental debate is really about protecting public health, as the gentleman has said. The jobs versus owls argument is dead. Again, I thank you for allowing me this time.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for his leadership on this important issue, and for calling this special order this evening. I would like to follow up with the colloquy you were having with the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] on the idea that we absolutely do need Federal standards. Not only do we need them, because you would have a race to the bottom as States might wish to attract certain kinds of industries which would not have to comply with State law, but also because pollution knows no State boundary. Without minimum environmental standards set by Federal law and Federal enforcement actions, the health of our communities, the environment and economy would be compromised across the board. Testimony submitted by the Citizens Panel of the Chesapeake Bay shows that Federal oversight and enforcement helped States work cooperatively to address environmental problems. Before the creation of the EPA, the six States on the Chesapeake Bay watershed allowed the waters to become severely polluted. Without a strong Federal enforcement presence, citizens in States like Virginia, which had cut its environmental budget by 26 percent, would have little recourse against pollution coming from other States. It is hard for young people to remember or even to know how it was before the EPA and before Earth Day. In the 40 years that the Democrats have been in control of Congress, great progress, as the gentleman has indicated, has been made. Twenty-five years ago my own beautiful San Francisco Bay could be smelled before it could be seen. I hate to tell you that. Major rivers caught on fire from industrial pollution. The Great Lakes resembled stagnant toxic pools rather than centers for recreation and commerce. Since then, national environmental laws have led to cleaner air, safe drinking water, and better controls of toxic waste and hazards. But the work is far from done, and the Republican assault on environmental budget will hamper such efforts. Due to recent cuts, the EPA has halted 68 waste cleanups in communities around the Nation. In New Jersey, your State, Mr. Pallone, 81 Superfund sites need to be cleaned up. I had an able article from a California paper, ``Strapped EPA limits cleanups. With funds cut off, agency slashes staff, narrows work to 10 of the most hazardous sites in California.'' This means that the head of the EPA in our region has kept a skeletal crew of 35 to 40, down from 900, to oversee the most serious problems and to tend to the other business. So we are faced with a terrible, terrible choice. This is not about only endangered species; this is about endangering the health of the people of our country, endangering our children. We are talking here about clean air, clean water, safe drinking water. I once has a volunteer in one of my campaigns, and when we asked her why she was attracted too come into a campaign, she said, ``I realize that politics has something to do with clean air and clean water, and I guess I have to be involved in politics, at least as long as I breathe air and drink water.'' And that is so true. What has happened since Earth Day 26 years ago, the first Earth Day, is that the people have become engaged. Our Republican colleagues see the resistance to their backward looking policies. Now they are trying to give the appearance of being green on Earth Day. But while they may try to act green for a day, the record shows that this has been the worst environmental Congress ever. The Republican Congress has attempted to roll back years of environmental progress in order to favor special interests. Because of Republican cuts, EPA has missed thousands of inspections and enforcement actions, cleanups have been slowed at 400 toxic waste sites, and stopped at 60 Superfund sites. Six rules to clean our waters have been delayed, causing hundreds of millions of pounds in pollution that could have been prevented, and old growth forests are being logged without environmental protection. This is a serious, serious assault on the environment. I heard our colleague talk about the environment and economics. I wanted to cite a report from California that says that, to the contrary, the environmental regulations do not produce a loss of jobs. The report that we have from the California State Senate shows clearly that rather than losing jobs, it promotes jobs. It promotes an environmental protection industry, it promotes the fishing industry, which depends on a clean environment. This whole methodology that there is a job loss because we are trying to protect clean air and clean water is just that, mythology and not reality. It is an excuse to take actions, but it is not a reason to do so. So there is a great deal at risk. I want to commend President Clinton for standing firm in this budget fight, standing firm to say, as Vice President Gore reiterated today, that he will veto legislation that has harmful environment riders or harmful anti-environment riders in them. Even with the riders gone, I am glad the President stood tall on the issue, in terms of the cuts to EPA which we have been talking about this evening and which have such damaging impact on the environment. I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] I serve on the Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, and on that committee we hear from scientists all the time. What they tell us is that pollution prevention is disease prevention. This is not just an environmental issue, if you could say ``just an environmental issue.'' It is a public health issue. The parents of this country, the families of this country, as the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] said, have to have the confidence that when their children go to the faucet and pour a glass of water, that they are not damaging their health. So we have to have Earth Day, we have to uphold the principles of Earth Day every day of the week and every day of the year. And in this body we have a responsibility to make sure that whatever we vote for here is in furtherance of protecting the environment, and we must reject the extreme proposals of the Republican majority to set us back on the last generation of improvement in the environment. Once again I want to thank you for your leadership on this, your relentless leadership on protecting the environment, and for giving me this opportunity to participate in this special order this evening.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the travel and tourism legislation of our colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Roth, and wish him much success with it. However, I do take issue with one comment that he made, and that is what he said about Earth Day, that it is a day we go have our press events, make some fuss about Earth Day, and then it is forgotten for the rest of the year. Maybe that is the approach that some of our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, and I am not including Mr. Roth in that, because I know that is not his attitude, but some of our more extreme Members on the Republican side of the aisle take to Earth Day, but that is not the appropriate approach. As our colleague mentioned Earth Day, we are preparing for Earth Day, the 26th anniversary of the first Earth Day, which will occur next Monday. I think it is important to make some observations about what has happened in this 104th Congress when it comes to the environment. The 104th Congress came to Washington with an aggressive anti- environment agenda promoted largely by industry and special interest groups who are determined to turn back 25 years of progress to protect public health, safety and the environment. The budget cuts proposed by the Gingrich majority in Congress for the Department of Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency are aimed at the heart of our Nation's environmental protection. The two departments with the greatest environmental authority have become the prime targets in the current attack on the environment. The proposed cut in funding for the EPA is 21 percent below last year's level, and this would seriously affect EPA's enforcement of clean air, clean water, and safe drinking water laws. The Interior appropriations bill included provisions to open Alaska's Tongass National Forest to increased logging and to continue the moratorium on the listing of new endangered species. The funding for protection of our Nation's wetlands, endangered species, forests and the public lands, must not be sacrificed in favor of short-term profits for miners, grazers, and developers. Programs to protect our Nation's water and air should not be held hostage to budget antics that have left these primary environmental agencies limping through the 1996 fiscal year with only a fraction of the funding needed to function. Mr. Speaker, I want to call to the attention of our colleagues once again some of the impacts of the extreme Republican cuts on the EPA. Weakened enforcement of environmental laws, including a 40-percent reduction in health and safety inspections of industrial facilities; delayed new standards to protect drinking water, including tap water standards; delayed new and ongoing cleanups at toxic waste sites; rolled-back community right-to-know information about toxic chemicals; created barriers to developing new controls to protect rivers and streams from industrial water pollutants. The Republican approaches have delayed approving pesticides with lower health risks as a safer alternative for farmers, delayed new standards for toxic industrial air pollutants, delayed review of air pollution standards to ensure adequate health protection, delayed studies on how toxic chemicals may impair reproductive development, and studies on how pollution affects high risk populations. I want to make two observations. The list goes on and on. I am just naming a few that affect EPA. There are others that affect the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice's enforcement. I make two observations about that list. One is, Mr. Speaker, as you know, as a colleague on the Subcommittee on Health and Human Services of the Committee on Appropriations, scientists have come before our subcommittee and said that you cannot separate personal health from the health of our environment. Pollution prevention is disease prevention. That makes these cuts foolish cuts, because they are not cutting the budget, they are reducing an investment in public health as well as environmental health. I want to also call to the attention of our colleagues the release of a report by the California State Senate on environmental protection. The report says, ``Contrary to popular belief, environmental regulations are not a major cause of job losses and declining economic performance.'' The Senate report concludes that environmental laws are not a major cause for the relocation of businesses to other States or countries. According to the report, more jobs are lost from leveraged buy- outs and mergers than from controlling pollution. The American people have the answer: They want a safe and healthy environment. We should follow their lead and we should live up to their expectations that the Federal Government will ensure their health and safety at all levels. Mr. Speaker, on that note, I would like to close by saying when we observe Earth Day this year, we should use it to make observations about how far we have come and what is at risk, and we should every day of every year work to protect the environment and health of the American people.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 26th anniversary of the first Earth Day next Monday, I would like to make the following observations about the 104th Congress. The 104th Congress came to Washington with an aggressive, antienvironment agenda promoted largely by industry and special interest groups who were determined to turn back 25 years of progress to protect public health, safety, and the environment. The budget cuts proposed by the Gingrich Congress for the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency are aimed at the heart of our Nation's environmental protection. The two departments with the greatest environmental authority have become the prime targets in the current attack on the environment. The proposed cut in funding for the EPA is 21 percent below last year's level, which would seriously affect EPA's enforcement of clean air, clean water, and safe drinking water laws. The Interior appropriations bill included provisions to open Alaska's Tongass National Forest to increased logging and continue the moratorium on listing new endangered species. The funding for protection of our Nation's wetlands, endangered species, forests, and public lands must not be sacrificed in favor of short-term profits for miners, grazers, and developers. Programs to protect our Nation's water and air should not be held hostage to budget antics that have left these primary environmental agencies limping through the 1996 fiscal year with only a fraction of the funding needed to function. The impacts of Republican cuts to the EPA include: Weakened enforcement of environmental laws--including a 40-percent reduction in health and safety inspections of industrial facilities; Delayed new standards to protect drinking water--including tap water standards for pollutants like cryptosporidium, which killed 100 people in Milwaukee in 1993; Delayed new and ongoing cleanups at toxic waste sites--start of new construction halted at 68 sites; pace of cleanup slowed at 400 sites; Rolled back community right-to-know information about toxic chemicals; Created barriers to developing new controls to protect rivers and streams from industrial water pollutants; Delayed approving pesticides with lower health risks as a safer alternative for farmers; Delayed new standards for toxic industrial air pollutants; Delayed review of air pollution standards to ensure adequate health protection; and Delayed studies on how toxic chemicals may impair reproductive development and studies on how pollution affects high-risk populations. These are just some of the effects of the cuts to EPA funding. I have not even listed the serious impacts of spending cuts on the Department of the Interior. I will conclude with two observations. First, scientists say you cannot separate personal health from the health of our environment. Pollution prevention equals disease prevention. These foolish cuts are reducing our Nation's investment in public health. It is false economy to cut back on enforcement of clean air and clean water. How sad that 26 years after the first Earth Day and a generation of fighting pollution, the Republicans are choosing to dismantle environmental programs. Second, I will call attention to a report on environmental protection by the California State Senate. The press reports, ``Contrary to popular belief, environmental regulations are not a major cause of job losses and declining economic performance.'' The Senate report concludes that environmental laws are not a major cause for the relocation of business to other States or countries. According to the report, more jobs are lost from leveraged buyouts and mergers than from controlling pollution. The American people have the answer--they want a safe and healthy environment. We should follow their lead, and we should live up to their expectations that the Federal Government will ensure their health and safety at all levels. We should remember that every day of every year.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with the Holocaust Center of Northern California to honor Prof. Jan Karski, a member of the Polish underground during World War II who risked his life in an effort to stop the Holocaust. Professor Karski, a devout Roman Catholic, was captured and savagely tortured by the Gestapo while working as a courier in 1940. Willing to sacrifice his life to protect the underground, Professor Karski escaped with the help of the Polish workers, and returned to his work as a courier. In 1942, Professor Karski was smuggled into the Warsaw ghetto and death camp near Belzec, and then traveled secretly to Washington, DC, where he provided President Roosevelt, other top Government officials, journalists, and religious leaders with a terrifying eyewitness account of the extermination of thousands of helpless and innocent Jews. Professor Karski traveled extensively throughout the United States lecturing about the atrocities he had witnessed. In 1944, he published a best-selling book, ``The Story of the Secret State'', which exposed the Nazis' genocidal plans. Twenty-five years later, Professor Karski broke his silence about the terrible secret in Claude Lanzmann's epic Holocaust film documentary, ``Shoah.'' In recognition of his courage on behalf of the Jewish people, Professor Karski was honored at Yad Vashem as a Righteous Among the Nations in 1982 and the Israeli Government awarded him honorary citizenship in 1994. I am pleased to join with the Holocaust Center of Northern California and the Jewish religious community to pay tribute to this great man on Yom HaShoah, the Day of Holocaust Remembrance, which begins at sundown on Monday, April 15, 1996. Professor Karski is a hero not only to his own people but to all of humanity. With his unwavering courage and integrity, Professor Karski is a role model for us all, for he demonstrated how the human spirit can triumph over extreme evil and adversity. Now in his eighties, Professor Karski continues to speak out against racism, anti-Semitism and intolerance so others might learn from the horrible mistakes of the past.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos] for yielding this time to me and for his leadership on issues, international issues as well as others, that come before this House. I have great respect for the chair of the committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], and our ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton]. I rise today to express concern about a couple of the provisions of this legislation, H.R. 3121. I do not believe that the bill before us should be on suspension calendar because it covers a great deal of territory and with a minimal amount of debate and consideration on the floor. My two concerns, one I share with many of my colleagues, is about the enhanced IMET to Indonesia for 1996-97 and my concern about arms control. I listened very attentively to the remarks of the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], and appreciate the assurances he has given about the increased ceiling in terms of the weapons, the sale, amount of the weapon sales, and the increased discretion given to Congress to intervene in those sales, and I accept his explanation, and I look forward to getting more information that is contained in the bill. But I would, for the record, like to express concern about the international military and education training for Indonesia for 1996 and 1997. Our colleagues have said that this legislation tracks the Committee on Foreign Operations legislation. Well, it does for 1996. Many of us on the committee, and I serve on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, do not think that Indonesia should be getting any IMET. We recognize that there are those who believe that this enhanced IMET for the purposes of fostering civilian control in the role of an army and a more democratic country, et cetera, I do not know if I have defined Indonesia that way, but nonetheless this IMET, enhanced IMET, could be useful. And in that spirit of cooperation we accepted the compromise proposed graciously by our chairman, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], with the understanding that it was only for 1996 and the program would be carefully monitored. We accepted the compromise but remain convinced nonetheless that Indonesia should not receive IMET funds. Now we see before us, in the bill before us, extending the IMET for 1997 despite the fact the record shows continuing serious human rights abuses by the armed forces in Indonesia that several of our colleagues referenced specifically in East Timor. We will continue the debate on this important issue as the Committee on Foreign Operations considers fiscal year 1997. I mentioned my concerns about the arms sales and think there could be dangerous consequences, but, as I say, accept the explanation extended by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton]. While the notification process may be considered cumbersome by some in the bureaucracy, congressional oversight helps insure that the taxpayer dollars are well spent. Again, I am concerned the bill was placed on suspension calendar with little information to many Members. Passage of the bill does not reflect wholehearted support for some of the provisions it contains; I guess that is a rule of life around here. But I do want to very strongly convey to our chairman that this does not track the foreign ops bill for 1996-97. The foreign ops bill only gave enhanced IMET for 1996, and I hope that the gentleman would join with us in monitoring how that enhanced IMET funding is spent.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Stephen Geppi, the 1996 winner of the Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr., Good Citizenship Award. Named for the late, great Mayor Thomas D'Alesandro, this recognition is bestowed upon Mr. Geppi for his contributions to the Italian-American community. Born in Baltimore, Mr. Geppi learned at an early age the importance of hard work when he had to leave school to support his mother. His first job, at age 9, was bundling comic books and magazines. He opted to take part of his wages in comics. Even when, as an adult, he took a job with the U.S. Postal Service, his interest in comic books did not wane. He began asking customers on his mail route for old comic books to sell or trade, and soon earned more buying and selling comics than he did delivering the mail. Mr. Geppi opened Geppi's Comic World in Baltimore in 1974, and soon expanded to four stores. By 1982, he moved into comic distribution, and in just over 10 years time he expanded his distribution business to over 28 cities across North America and Europe. In addition to distribution, he branched out to publishing, and 1 year ago opened Diamond International Galleries, devoted to comics, comic collectibles, and related art which draws visitors from all over the world. Mr. Geppi's extraordinary professional success has not prevented him from active involvement in his community. In 1993, he was one of the consortium of local investors who brought the Baltimore Orioles back to local ownership. He has actively served on civic boards or committees with a number of local organizations, including the Maryland Science Center, the Baltimore Zoo, the Johns Hopkins Children's Center, the College of Notre Dame, the International Museum of Cartoon Art, and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. This is not the first time Mr. Geppi has been honored for his many accomplishments. Most recently, he was named ``Business Owner of the Year'' by the Baltimore County Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to salute Stephen Geppi for the honor he has brought to the Italian-American community by his many accomplishments and commitment to the community. He deserves this award for the contributions he has made in the spirit and tradition of its namesake, Thomas D'Alesandro.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, which would prevent doctors from performing a lifesaving medical procedure. This is a direct threat to the health and lives of American women. Mr. Speaker, we all hope that the number of abortions in this country can be decreased. But this debate is not about abortion. Restricting medical options that endangers the health of women is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has stated that the Government may ban post-viability abortions, but it cannot restrict abortion when the procedure may be necessary to save the health and life of the mother. The life exception included in this legislation is far too narrow to protect women's lives effectively. The exception would allow this procedure only as a last resort when a women's life is threatened by physical disorder, illness, and injury--when who other medical procedure would suffice. It does not consider that this may be the safest procedure to protect the health and life of the mother. This so- called life exception would have a women rendered sterile or face critical health risks rather than the use the safe and rare procedure that this legislation is attempting to outlaw. Families faced with this difficult decision often go on to have successful pregnancies. Yet this legislation does nothing to protect health or future fertility of the mother--in fact, it puts a mother's future fertility at risk. Mr. Speaker, the so-called partial-birth abortion ban is unconstitutional and inhumane. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the repeal of the ban. Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, 3 years ago at 101 California Street, a mad gunman using an assault weapon went in and, in a matter of seconds, snuffed out the lives and futures of many young people in a law firm there. And now the Republican leadership wants to repeal the ban that so many of the victims of that assault worked so hard for. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership in this House talks a good act about caring about victims' rights. I do, too. We all talked about it a great deal in the course of the crime bill. Where are they when it comes to victims' rights when we are talking about the assault weapons? The victims of all of these assaults have called out, crusaded for this ban. I have here a long list, Mr. Speaker, not only of the victims but of the law enforcement agencies, the California State Sheriffs' Association, the California Police Chiefs' Association, lists and lists and lists of police departments and sheriffs' departments from across the State of California, the medical community, religious organizations, victims, and their families. Mr. Speaker, in public opinion surveys, 72 percent of the people of California support the ban. So I say to these people, how do we explain to them why my colleagues are bringing this repeal to the floor, a repeal that the President has said he will veto? You tell me how I can explain to Michelle Scully, who lost her husband. Shall I just tell her that Members could not say no to the National Rifle Association?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Berman, Brownback and Chrysler amendment, which strikes the provisions in this legislation which reduce and restrict legal immigration. I agree with my colleagues that we must curb illegal immigration responsibly and effectively. However, as the Berman, Brownback and Chrysler amendment recognizes, the issue of legal immigration is clearly distinct and separate. Legal immigration is currently tightly controlled and regulated. Yet this legislation proposes the largest cut in immigration in nearly 70 years. Lawful and orderly family reunification contributes to strengthening American families. Yet almost \3/4\ of the bill's reductions in the number of legal immigrants admitted come in family-related categories. Provisions in this legislation make it impossible for legal immigrants to be united with some family members. Under this legislation, virtually no Americans would be able to sponsor their parents, adult children or siblings for immigration. Not all Americans subscribe to the restrictive definition of family imposed in the bill-- nor should they. America has long been a haven for refugees seeking freedom from political, religious and gender persecution. Yet this bill would cut in half our current ability to offer asylum to people in dire need. Immigrants today who come to our country through legal means are not at all different from immigrants of generations past--our parents or grandparents. They should have every opportunity to reunite their families. They should have every opportunity to contribute to our economy and culture. They have played by the rules. They should not be punished. I urge my colleagues to recognize the extraordinary benefits to our country of legal immigration and support the Berman, Brownback, and Chrysler amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pombo/Chambliss amendment modifying the agriculture guestworker program to allow more guestworkers to enter the country. It does not make sense that a bill which aims to limit immigration would endorse a program that loosens immigration restrictions. There is no evidence of a shortage of agricultural workers in the United States. Almost half of the farmworkers in the U.S. currently cannot find work in agriculture. This amendment makes it easier to hire alien temporary workers than under current law, which would make that unemployment problem worse. This amendment very clearly promotes the unemployment of American agricultural workers and the exploitation of foreign agricultural workers. It will result in denying jobs to U.S. farmworkers, decreasing wages and unsafe working conditions. The amendment provides weaker worker protection than the current H-2A program. Under this amendment, employers would no longer be responsible for housing for guestworkers. Since affordable farmworker housing, especially in my home State of California, is in short supply, we would be ensuring an increase in homelessness. The Pombo/Chambliss amendment is not fair to the American farmworker or the foreign worker. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this immigration reform bill, H.R. 2202. I agree with my colleagues that we have a legitimate national interest in ensuring that people come to our country through legal means. There is ample need for a reasoned and balanced debate about reform of our immigration system. However, the provision in this legislation fall far short of achieving the goal of effective immigration reform in a responsible, fair, and humane manner. I have many areas of concern in this bill. H.R. 2202 goes too far in placing extreme restrictions on legal immigration, decreasing by 30 percent total annual number of the legal immigrants admitted into this country. Legal immigration has been of central importance to our development as a nation. We began as a nation of immigrants, and our country continues to reap untold benefits from the energy, ideas, talents, and contributions of those who arrive in this country seeking the opportunity to prove themselves and to contribute to the greatest Nation on Earth. H.R. 2202 sanctions discrimination against the families of legal U.S. residents who have paid their taxes, served in the Armed Forces, and contributed to the growth of the Nation's economy and to the cultural diversity of our society. In a Congress which heralds family values as its prevailing theme, this bill is extreme antifamily legislation. Restrictions to family reunification in this bill ensure that American families may be forever separated from their loved ones. Under this legislation, virtually no Americans would be able to sponsor their parents, adult children, or siblings for immigration. Not all Americans subscribe to the restrictive definition of family imposed in the bill--nor should they. The bill will cut annual refugee admissions in half. Can we be so cold as to tell these victims of persecution to go away, our doors are shut, our country is full? This extreme cap would severely limit the flexibility of the U.S. refugee system to respond to unpredictable humanitarian crises. The proposal for summary exclusion included in the bill would eliminate many of the procedural protections to ensure that legitimate asylum seekers receive full consideration of their asylum claims. Nervous, frightened, exhausted victims are charged with one chance to prove their claims of persecution. If an error is made, they face immediate deportation. A victim of rape, torture, or gender persecution may have difficulty effectively discussing his or her case under restrictive procedures. The severe restriction of benefits to immigrants is yet another point of great concern in this legislation. 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. Yet, the myth persists that welfare benefits are the primary purpose for immigration to the United States. This bill does not achieve the goals of real and rational immigration reform. It hurts families, it hurts children, it hurts hard-working Americans. For the reasons just mentioned and for many more, this legislation is not good for our country. I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith-Schiff amendment, striking the provision which cuts refugee admissions. The 50,000 refugee cap is a drastic, arbitrary reduction that will cut annual refugee admissions in half. This extreme cap represents less than half of our country's current admissions. This is an unfair and unnecessary provision. The cap would severely limit the flexibility of the U.S. refugee system to respond to unpredictable humanitarian crises. For example, the administration set aside 2,000 refugee admission slots for Bosnians, many of which were filled by women who had been systematically raped by Serb forces. There are atrocities occurring throughout our world that cannot be factored accurately into a fixed number of refugee admissions. Women and children constitute 80 percent of the world's refugees. This cap would have a tremendous negative effect on these people fleeing from danger and persecution. If this provision is passed, the United States will be sending a clear signal to the international community that it is backpedaling from its commitment to refugee protection. I urge my colleagues to exercise their compassion for the world's refugee population and vote for the Smith-Schiff amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Canady amendment, which would require English proficiency for certain immigrants. Americans all share a common set of ideas and values. It is the common belief that common goals rather than a common language bond us together. To insist that a common language be a prerequisite for entry into our country is unnecessary. Immigrants realize that learning English is imperative and are not reluctant to do so. In Los Angeles, the demand for English as a second language class is so great that some schools run 24 hours a day. Current generations of immigrants are learning English more quickly than those of previous generations. This amendment sets up a system to exclude certain groups of immigrants. It contributes to an atmosphere of intolerance for diversity. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Canady amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gallegly amendment, which would deny a public education to undocumented immigrant children. This amendment is cruel, does not save money, and does nothing to advance immigration control. Once more, we see innocent children being made the scapegoat in the immigration policy debate. The plan seems to be to use any means to punish the children of undocumented immigrants. To deny anyone the opportunity to be educated is short-sighted and inhumane. If undocumented children cannot be educated, they will have nowhere to go but the streets. These children will not just go away if we continue to deny them benefits. They will be sent reeling into the cycle of poverty that we are seeking to end. Moreover, this particular provision will be a nightmare for already overburdened school districts to enforce. It will take an enormous investment of funds and time to document the status of every child enrolled in public schools. Schools should be a safe place of learning and opportunity for young people. The doors should not be shut to innocent children in order to punish their parents. Children should not grow up learning that only some of them are fit or qualified to receive an education. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Gallegly amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by Representatives Velazquez and Roybal-Allard, which would strike provisions in this bill prohibiting legal immigrant and citizens children from obtaining Government assistance through their parents if their parents are ineligible for benefits. This provision is mean-spirited, unnecessary, and does nothing to advance immigration enforcement efforts. It also violate constitutional rights. Children born in the United States are entitled to equal protection under the law. Preventing U.S. citizens from obtaining benefits because their parents are ineligible violates equal protection laws. This provision would necessitate State and local governments implementing a complex guardian system for children who already have capable, competent, and loving parents. This provision would not save money or improve enforcement efforts. The only purpose it would serve is a political one--making needy and hungry children an example because of the immigration status of their parents. Children should not be held responsible in this debate. I urge my colleague to vote for the Velazquez/Roybal-Allard amendment and strike this provision from the bill.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bryant amendment, which would require public medical facilities to report cases of patients who appear to be undocumented. This amendment risks lives, threatens public health, and harasses U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. Medical personnel have devoted their lives to treating and preventing illnesses. They cannot effectively perform their duties if they are constantly concerned with policing their patients based solely on suspicion of undocumented status. Medical professionals are also unable to perform their duties if patients who need their help are so fearful of being caught and deported that they neglect to seek treatment for serious or infectious disease. The spread of infectious disease could increase dramatically in this country because of this requirement. Medical personnel are not immigration experts. Imposing this requirement on medical facilities would feed the climate of fear and zenophobia in this country. People who are mistaken for undocumented immigrants because of their appearance or their accent face the possibility of harassment when they seek needed medical care for themselves and their families. When a person is ill or suffering, it is not appropriate or humane to ask him or her to brandish the necessary immigration documents prior to treatment. If we are to remain a country of compassion, I ask my colleagues to defeat this harmful amendment.