Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. We did, in fact. It was one of the provisions of the contract, but not to apply to President Clinton.

Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as this debate has proceeded, I have been listening to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about who is responsible for the shutdown, and I will go into that in a moment. But in the course of the debate it was interesting to hear people refer to various symbols of patriotism in our country: the American flag, the eagle, Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam, he is a symbol of the Federal Government, but he has now become our deadbeat uncle, because across the country as we all sat down to our Christmas dinners and the start of a new year, many Federal workers were deprived of their pay, even those who were working. Even further than that, many people who depend on the Federal Government to function not only now experience a tightening of the belt, but a closing down of their businesses, whether it is a sandwich shop near a Federal building or a tourist bed-and-breakfast near Yosemite National Park or some other national park throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, as we convene this second session of this Congress, we should all be ashamed of the disrespect with which Congress is treating hundreds of thousands of our valued Federal employees, public servants who want to work, many who are working now, and who perform important services for the people of our Nation. Federal workers have been caught in the middle, against their will, held hostage to the machinations of the 104th Congress. This is a personal loss for many, and it is also a loss to the American taxpayer who has invested in Federal performance. It is time to end the Federal Government shutdown and to allow 260,000 Federal workers to return to their jobs. It is self-evident, I think, Mr. Speaker, that people who work should get paid for their work. Why should that be a mystery? Why is that even an issue here? But do not take my word for it. I think it would be important to hear the voices of some Federal employees who yesterday rallied across the country. Their cry was: We will no longer be sacrificial lambs. Some of their individual stories are so definitive, so clear about why we should end this shutdown, that I want to share some of their words with you. Pete, who files papers in the U.S. attorney's office, told the crowd of coworkers that she brought her two children to work yesterday because she could not afford child care after her paycheck stopped. Her children are at work with her as she changes diapers while she does work for the Federal Government. Howard exclaimed, ``If you do work, you should get paid. This is a type of 20th century slavery. We're responsible for our rent and board. Nobody else is going to be paying for it. We cannot file for unemployment,'' this particular group could not. ``We cannot file for food stamps. What can we do?'' And finally, Eula said that she can now barely afford the gas money to get her from home to work. She has a commute between Antioch and Richmond, CA. Lajuana Brown had to cancel her 2-week Christmas vacation to work, and then had to ask her mother to take care of her children because she could not afford day care. Mr. Speaker, the stories go on and on and on. In the course of the debate, our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have made various comments as to where the blame lay for this shutdown. It is interesting to hear them talk, because some of the comments seem to be contradictory, if the Parliamentarian would allow such a word. First of all, they talk about if the President had not vetoed these bills. Thank God the President vetoed these totally unacceptable bills. They contend that they support a line-item veto, except not for this President. How inconsistent of them to argue about a President vetoing a bill, supporting a line-item veto, and not giving it to President Clinton.

Ms. PELOSI. They just have not given it to President Clinton, because of the delay. They also talk about compassion. How many times have we heard our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle say neither party has a monopoly on compassion? Well, I say to them, my Republican colleagues, that compassion without a positive initiative for change and for action is an empty emotion. Sure, we are all compassionate, but what does that mean unless it translates into action to meet the needs of America's families, and certainly not to send them to work without paying them? They talk about the capital gains tax and say, ``Oh, President Clinton says he will support a capital gains tax.'' President Clinton said he would be open to some capital gains tax, not the giveaway to the rich for any turnover of any asset that our Republican colleagues are advocating. Last of all, because I do not have any more time, I want to say the other contradiction that I hear is that they say that Congress should obey the rules that other people do. If that is the case, then Congress should not be receiving a paycheck at a time when other Federal workers are not. I call upon the Republican leadership to bring legislation to the floor to effect that. It has been proposed by our Democratic colleagues. So much to say, so little time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr], for taking this time for us to express the condolences and the sympathy of all Members of this body to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and his family for his tremendous loss. I also wanted to say that our colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo], expressed so well the sentiments that we all share. She was the head of the prayer patrol for Anne in the Congress, and we were all alerted a couple of months ago that more prayers were needed, and we did not realize, though, how drastically. I would like to say, as I say my colleagues have said it so eloquently, but I just want to say a couple of things about Anne. She was only 2 years old when Vic was elected to the Congress, and she worked as a volunteer in her father's office and became very acquainted with politics. She had an interest in public service and she was a page in the summer of 1988. Vic and Anne's mother described her best when Vic said, ``Anne had an indomitable spirit and a tremendous amount of will,'' a tearful Vic Fazio said on Monday. Her mother said she was a wonderful daughter and a wonderful friend. We all shared Vic's concern over the years when Anne was fighting leukemia, and she proved herself a trouper, a fighter, and as my two colleagues have said, a star. Any words of consolation to someone who has lost a child are, of course, inadequate and, in fact, impossible. But I hope it is a consolation to Vic and to Joey, Carolyn Mason, Anne's mother, I hope it is a consolation to them we all learned a great deal from Anne in her courage and her strength. She was an inspiration to many people in the Congress of the United States and all who knew her, and I hope they are consoled by the fact that her life was appreciated, that she left this Earth as a teacher, as an inspiration, and that she is remembered in the prayers of all Members of the Congress of the United States. Again, I thank our colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr], and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo] for their words of inspiration and again extend our deepest, deepest sympathy to Vic Fazio and his family.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is time for this House of Representatives to get a grip. The shutdown of the Federal Government is unworthy of a great country. The irresponsible actions of this House have increased the economic uncertainty of our Federal workers. Whether they get paid eventually or not is unknown, but what is known is that those industries which depend on the Federal Government operating will never be made whole. Think, in our area in California, Mariposa County has appealed to Governor Wilson to declare them a disaster area because of the loss of business due to the closing of Yosemite Park. It goes on and on, with coffee shops and stationery stores and all the rest who do business as a result of the Federal Government and Federal buildings being functioning. Mr. Speaker, for a Nation that prides itself on the issue of fairness, this shutdown is unfair to the American taxpayer, unfair to the Federal workers, unfair to American businesses who want to engage in trade. We are not able to protect our environment, to conduct our foreign policy. Mr. Speaker, if this is the tactic that the Republicans want to use, then in a sense of fairness we should not be accepting our own paychecks.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the personal toll resulting from the Federal shutdown is enormous and its effects are far reaching. For thousands of Federal workers, the shutdown means a great financial stretch for many to make mortgage and other payments due. For American taxpayers, it means they are simply not getting their money's worth. Taxpayers have made an investment in these workers and their services to the public, and they are getting no return on their investment. Federal workers have been shut out by the shutdown, and the American taxpayer has been shut out by the shutdown. In addition to the personal toll, there is a tremendous impact on the environment. Cleanup of Superfund sites has been halted. The 2,800 individuals who are responsible for this important program have been furloughed. Other important environmental enforcement programs have been shut down, including the call-in EPA hotline to report drinking water contamination. Many companies have been put on hold waiting for EPA assistance or permits to conduct their activities. They have been shut out by the shutdown. In today's Post, there is an article about an EPA contractor which discusses the difficulties imposed by lack of Federal funding for the agency that owes him money. As a result of not being paid, he and scores of other small businesses in the same situation may have to release workers they can no longer afford to pay. These Federal contractors and small businesses have been shut out by the shutdown. The communities adjacent to parks and lands operated by the Interior Department are losing tourist revenue. In California, Mariposa County has asked Governor Wilson to declare a state of emergency because of the loss of business from visitors to Yosemite National Park. The average 383,000 people who visit national parks each day are shut out by the shutdown. The loss on all levels is great. The Republicans may be mad at Government, but Federal workers, small businesses, and visitors to our Nation's scenic wonders are not big government or what the Republicans have now relegated to little taxpayers. They are valued workers who deserve to be paid for their work and a public who deserves to get what it pays for. Balancing the budget in the name of taxpayers is a contradiction when the shutdown is costing them over $40 million a day--over $1.5 billion so far. By your actions to continue the shutdown, you are depriving Federal workers of their earned income and the American taxpayer of a return on their investment. Balance the budget, but don't shut out our Federal workers and the American public. This balancing act is just too expensive for everyone.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to commend the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Moakley, for making this debate possible this morning; and add my voice to those commending our chairperson of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Congresswoman Nancy Johnson, and our ranking member, the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. McDermott, for their leadership. And, as I say, especially our chairperson, for forging a consensus on this very difficult issue, and reminding Members of our evenly divided bipartisan committee. I want to remind my colleagues of a couple of things. Once again, the committee is bipartisan, evenly divided, five Democrats and five Republicans. And the report of which this rule was a part, the report and the better, came out of the committee unanimously, ten to nothing. I also want to remind my colleagues that should this body reject the recommendation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, it would be the first time that the House of Representatives would have done that. Mr. Speaker, it seems ironic to me that we are gathered here this morning, while the Government is shut down, while we are having debates about how we are going to get checks out to poor people, that we are standing here talking about why Members of Congress should make more money on the outside, earned income, after they have been elected to come to Washington, DC, to do a job. I think that the particular rule we are addressing, frankly, does not speak necessarily to the integrity of any individual Member, but to the picture of what the American people expect of us; and, also, how the publishing industry works, which I think was enlightening to us, those of us on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. So, I would say to our colleagues, I could be wrong. I could be wrong. But I think the American people, and I think the people involved in grassroots politics and issues who fight so passionately for their point of view, and those who elect us to this Congress, expect us to come here and not, as the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] said, be 435 free enterprise profit-making zones, but to do the work of the people. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and reject the Solomon resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Solomon amendment, and remind our colleagues that if the Solomon resolution passes, we will not have an opportunity to vote for the report of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to commend the Chair and the ranking member of our committee for the bipartisan manner in which the business of the Permanent Select Committees on Intelligence has been conducted. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] for his leadership and cooperation on the sanctions issue, on which we went into detail when the bill originally came to the floor. Simply said, if the administration chooses not to issue sanctions for reasons as are spelled out in the bill, this action would be rare and Congress would be looking closely at the actions they take. I, too, agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], that as we cut spending across the board in the Congress of the United States, that our intelligence budget should be subjected to that same tightening of the belt. I wish that his amendment, which I thought was a very sensible one, because it left the discretion to the DCI and Secretary of Defense to do the cutting, was one that I had hoped this body would have accepted. It did not. However, I still rise to support the legislation because I believe that the bill before us is one that, at least for this next year, is worthy of support. It is worthy of support, I believe, because of the work that has gone into it but also because of the new director of the Central Intelligence, Director Deutch. I believe he deserves the confidence of the Congress of the United States to attempt to change how the intelligence community relates to itself and to each other. I also believe that we have to have appropriate funding in order to build the satellite architecture and make the determinations about the satellite architecture. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the diversity issue be addressed more proactively in the Central Intelligence Agency, and I accept the director's assurances that that will take place. I believe that our country is better served when all of its manifestations reflect the diversity of our country. It is very, very important in terms of intelligence. What country has greater diversity in terms of language, in culture, and representation than the United States? I think our needs in terms of intelligence are served by drawing upon that, diversity certainly not only in our recruiting, but in our advancement within the Central Intelligence Agency and the community. And in that I certainly include the participation of women. I am pleased with the appointment of Nora Slatkin as the executive director. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the funding for their issues. We do need funds in order to declassify the material that we need to declassify. We need to prepare for a comprehensive test ban treaty verification. There are many reasons why we have to provide the resources to go forward, including the environment. I share the concern of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] about economic espionage. I think that corporations should do their own intelligence. If the needs of the country are served by our economic intelligence, that is quite different than serving the needs of a particular company. With that, Mr. Speaker, I again commend the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership. I, too, will fight again for cuts. I think we should have more declassification and more diversity in our intelligence services and will fight for that in the next year.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, certainly, economic espionage does not require the type of money that we are talking about here.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I have two concerns about the economic espionage. One is the one the gentleman just spelled out, that we are not here to be an extension of providing corporate welfare to corporations to help them do business internationally, and the gentleman makes the distinction very well in terms of what is in the interest of our country, trade, et cetera. But I have another concern, and that is how many of my colleagues remember when we were young, what was the March of Dimes against polio, and then all of a sudden one day, who knows, the day when the March of Dimes was to fight birth defects. It happened at a time very appropriately, and I am saying that with great positive admiration for the work that is done there. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to see the intelligence community all of the sudden justifying its existence on the economic side, when what has been described by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] and by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] as real threats. And as we know, if we send our troops out, we have to provide the best intelligence, but I do not want the justification for this big budget, which I think should be cut, to be now economic espionage. That is part of my concern with this new mission.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to also commend him for his leadership for children in our country and throughout the world. His approach to this problem has been effective and, indeed, even saintly, in keeping with the words of the Bible, to feed the hungry, in the words of Matthew, to provide for the least, I'd rather say, the poorest of our brethren. I thank him for that leadership. I thank the gentleman from New York for bringing this to the floor. I rise in opposition with the greatest respect for the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]; I rise in opposition to the rule and in opposition to the bill. I rise in opposition to the conference report because I think this legislation will devastate the working poor, children, legal immigrants, the elderly, and the disabled. I listened attentively to the remarks of our colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], about welfare reform, and indeed we all stipulate to the fact that the welfare system in our country must be reformed. I served as a cochairman of the Democratic platform committee with Gov. Roy Roemer of Colorado in the election year of 1992, and, yes, indeed, we had strong language making changes in the welfare system so that it better meets the needs of our people and gets them from welfare to work. This bill, this conference report, is weak on work and tough on children. I consider it a heartless proposal and completely irresponsible in its intent to cut off families and children from the help they so desperately need. I was helping some people collect gifts for poor children and one of the children said, ``Doesn't Santa come to the homes of poor children?'' Even little children know of the unfairness and of the inequity when small children have to be dependent on the largess of others. We must have public policy that enables people to take charge of their lives and to go to work. The bill cheats our most vulnerable citizens. Our Nation's most vulnerable, poor children, two-thirds of welfare recipients are children, as a result of this bill, 1.2 million, as many as 2 million more children, could be pushed into poverty. Our children are our future. We all say that, but we have to do something about it. This bill jeopardizes their health, safety and education. We are giving them far less than they need and certainly less than they deserve. This bill, as I have said, is weak on work. One of the main problems of the current welfare system is the lack of sufficient funding for work programs. This bill does not even begin to provide adequate resources for work programs. It punishes parents who want to work by offering no reasonable and long-term solution to child care dilemmas faced by working families. Lack of funding for work programs provides stronger incentives to States to cut families off the welfare rolls. Then where will these people go? What will these people do? This bill does not answer those questions, because it does nothing to promote effective programs for moving larger numbers of families off welfare and into work. This bill cruelly discriminates against legal immigrants, punishing those who contribute to our economy and volunteer to serve in our military and whom we require to pay taxes. The overwhelming majority of legal immigrants support themselves without any government assistance. They contribute $25 billion more in annual taxes than they receive in benefits. Their goal is not to arrive in this country to be supported by it but to contribute to this country. The so-called welfare reform bill fails to fulfill a promise by moving people from welfare to work. This is not the way to reform our welfare system. I urge my colleagues to defeat this very harmful legislation. Vote ``no'' on the rule, vote ``no'' on the conference report, vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, listening to this debate tonight reminded me of when I was a small child. In the Catholic school I attended there was a framed picture on the wall, and it said, ``Suffer little children and come unto me.'' I could not understand it. I asked by parents and teacher who would want children to suffer, and then it was explained to me that the third or fourth meaning of suffer was permit, allow, children to come unto me. Listening to our colleagues exclude children from this continuing resolution goes to the first meaning of suffer little children, to hear our colleagues come to the well and say that they have to have it this way, only the veterans. By the way, I agree that the question here tonight is not why should we be doing this for the veterans. Of course we should. The question really is why should we not be doing it for children and others as well? But to hear our colleagues come to the well and say they are doing this so their children do not have to pay interest on the national debt 20 years from now, some children do not have anything to eat 20 minutes from now. The message is very clear, Republican majority: Suffer, little children.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. If the gentlewoman will yield, I just want to make one further point in that regard. Yes, if this House had done its work on time, September 30, midnight, had the bills to the President, we would not be here now. Certainly in years gone by, there have been times when appropriations bills have not been passed on time and we have had a need for a CR, but to this extent it has not been seen before. I want to make the further point that if we had not spent the first half of the year on the Contract With America, which had no prospect for Presidential signature, and only one bill, I think of which has even been signed into law, fine, if you have an agenda you want to bring to Congress; but make sure you do the work the public has sent you there to do, too, and that is to pass the appropriations bills, to debate the priorities, pass the bills so Government can function.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding, and for her leadership, and her persistence and her relentlessness on presenting this issue to the American people, and to my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], for his leadership as well. It is very clear listening to the two of you and to our other colleagues who have been making this fight to protect Medicare, and Medicaid, and student loans, and school nutritional programs for young children, et cetera, that what this fight is about here in Washington, DC, is not about politics, it is about philosophy and values and priorities. When we talk about balancing the budget, you have heard it a million times, the budget should be balanced in its values as well as fiscally balanced in terms of taking in and spending the same amount of money. That is why it is so very hard if you call a balanced budget your driving issue, why you can in the same breath talk about a tax cut of a quarter of a trillion dollars for the wealthiest people in our country. How can it be a statement of our national values, as our budget should be, for us to talk about cutting back on what our colleagues mentioned here, Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, school nutritional programs, et cetera, while we are giving a tax break at the high end? Our colleagues on the Republican side in this session, in this budget, make the folks who talked about trickle-down look good. Trickle-down never worked, but at least it gave some recognition that somewhere, somewhere along the line, there should be something for folks at the bottom of the economic scale. Their view was if you give it all to the top, create wealth at the top, the benefits will trickle down. Our colleagues now in this budget, in this Congress, do not even care if it trickless down. ``If you are at the low end, if you are poor, if you have not had the same opportunities as others, you are not going to get them. So be it.'' In our Labor-HHS we cut, or the Republican leadership cut, $1 billion out of aid to disadvantaged children, the Chapter I education appropriation, $1 billion. That is 1 million children in our country who will not get the kind of assistance they need early on in their education to help them fulfill themselves and make a valuable contribution to their society, as well as become taxpayers. I am very interested in showing what our colleagues spelled out in terms of the cuts and the values and the unfairness of the tax cut while we are, in many cases, increasing the taxes for people who make $30,000 or less, and we remove the earned income tax credit for families, too. Some people are making the minimum wage. If two wage- earners in a family are working at the minimum wage, full time, they bring home the rip-roaring sum of $17,000, and they will get a tax increase, because they will not, unless they have children, they will not receive the earned income tax credit. These young couples are preparing to have children, they are saving up to have children, and our colleagues are increasing their taxes, while giving the preponderance of this tax cut to the high end. I want to show once again what this means to California. Last week when we had our special order, I talked more specifically about what it meant to San Francisco. I do this because I think each of us, and I was pleased to be invited by my colleagues to do this last week and now, because we represent our districts here and are members of a delegation from a State, and we should all evaluate what it means to the people in our districts and our State, the budgets of our local communities and our State budgets, and the economies of our region. I am proud to be part of the California delegation in the Congress. My district is San Francisco, 80 percent of the city of San Francisco. I share representation with the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos]. This budget plan that the Republicans are proposing has a devastating impact on the State of California. First, let me tell you what California brings to the country. In terms of the balance of payments, in terms of trade, this dynamic, incredibly resourceful State of California has, and we can go top to bottom with many of these issues, and some of them are throughout, has contributed enormously to our exports, and therefore our balance of payments, and therefore to our national treasury in terms of high tech, biotech, agriculture, entertainment. This list goes on and on. There is tourism. Many people, of course, come from all over the world to visit California, so dollars from all over the world flow into our State. We have invested in our people. Our country, when our country invests in its people, we reap the benefit. Our particular State has been a very dynamic one, very resourceful in terms of when we have a setback, we can bounce back because of the deiversity of the economy in our State. We are taking a beating on the base closures and the cutbacks in defense spending, and that is appropriate as we wind down after the cold war, but that means that we also have to recognize that there are needs that we have in our State. Under this Republican balanced budget, the State of California, in the 7 years of the budget, will lose over $72 billion just in the reconcilitation part of the bill, not including the appropriations, so it will be closer to $100 billion in the 7 years. Just to put it in perspective, our State budget in California is approximately $57 billion a year, so it will be nearly 2 years in the next 7 years of a State budget which will be removed from California in terms of assistance to individuals, Medicare and Medicaid, student loans, et cetera, school nutritional programs, in terms of the cutbacks for localities and to the State budget. What that does to the economy of the State also has an impact on what happens nationally, because California is one-eighth of the country. I encourage my colleagues to look to your own States and districts to see what this really translates for you. Is it dynamic? Does it contribute to your people becoming more prosperous, and therefore paying more taxes, producing more revenues, enriching their lives, building a better future for our country, or does it have the opposite effect? Unfortunately for California, the impact of this budget is devastating, and one that we simply cannot absorb without severe economic setback for us in our State. When we hear people talk about this balanced budget, you have to say why are we here at this point, one week before Christmas, when we would all much rather be working in our districts with our constituents or spending time with our family, or preparing for a religious holiday? Instead, we are here. Why are we here? Because we have not finished our business. Every year the Congress must pass 13 appropriations bills. We have not done that. On top of it, the ones that we have done are so out of balance in terms of the values of the American people, the President could not possibly sign them. And three cheers for President Clinton for vetoing most recently the VA-HUD bill and the Interior appropriation bills, because if there is one thing that we all agree on in this country, it is that we want our children to breathe clean air and drink clean water and eat food that is not contaminated by pesticides. This antipollution insistence of the President is one in which I strongly support him. We all have to, too, because if there is one thing that is beyond all of us, as much as we want the best for our children, we cannot control the atmosphere and the water that comes out of the tap in our homes; or if we go to the market and we want to buy meat, we want to know that it is inspected, and what we bring into our homes, to our families, is safe. Government plays a role in that. I thank the President for vetoing. I remind you, veto means ``I forbid.'' I thank the President for forbidding these huge cuts in EPA, which protects the water and air our children drink and breathe. I thank the President for vetoing the Interior bill, which does damage to our environment. Hopefully our colleagues on this side of the aisle, the Republican colleagues, will see the light and come to terms with the President on these bills. When we have agreement on this appropriations bills, there will be no need for a continuing resolution, and we can debate the priorities of our budget in the appropriate time frame. Remember, when we talk about a balanced budget and we throw in a quarter of a trillion dollar tax cut, overwhelmingly at the high end for the wealthiest individuals of our country, you are, de facto, imposing severe hardship on children and senior citizens in our country. One other point, in closing, that I would like to make. In the Los Angeles Times--yes, we San Franciscans read the Los Angeles Times, too--there is an article today which I will submit for the Record, and it is called ``Offspring May Pay Medicaid Tab.'' ``GOP plan to balance budget would let States require adult children of nursing home residents to contribute to cost of parents' care.'' Mr. Speaker, I have already addressed this at length, but this article does so, too. From the National Senior Citizens Law Center, Patricia Nemore says, ``This is hitting families when they have their children's education and their own retirement to save for.'' As my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, said, if you are above the median income level your assets will be called upon to pay for your parents' nursing home care if they are on Medicaid. This is after families have paid down so many of their resources already, and that is why they are on Medicaid and in the nursing home. This is when families in middle age, middle-income families, are raising their own children and sending them to college. This is at a point where you use an arbitrary figure, like median income. Certainly there are people in our country who can afford to do this, but using an arbitrary figures like median income, and to say that that is a burden that the States may now put on families, I think contributes enormously to the economic as well as the health security of America's families. Mr. Speaker, at this magnificent time of the year, when we should be heeding the words of Matthew in the Bible and feeding the hungry and giving shelter to the homeless, et cetera, as the Bible called for, and as the gatekeeper in heaven said, ``When you did this for the least,'' and I would rather say, ``the poorest of our brethren, you did it for me,'' when we do that, certainly we honor acts of charity, we honor the God who made us, we honor our creation. But these people should not have to be dependent on the largesse of individuals. We must have public policy that recognizes that the way we are going to have a strong country is to invest in our people, to give them education and opportunity, and to understand that they cannot be exposed from a health or economic standpoint in the ways that this so-called balanced budget proposal of our colleague proposes. I am so pleased that President Clinton had the courage, in the face of all that has happened, the close down of government, to say ``No, I forbid,'' to these proposals that the Republicans are making on the appropriations bills. When they come to the reality that the public will not accept those false priorities on the Republican side and the President is proposing what is good for America's future, only then will these bills be passed. There will be no need for a continuing resolution anymore, they will be passed and signed by the President, eliminating the need for the CR and taking us to a place where we can truly produce a balanced budget, balanced in money, balanced in values, balanced in priorities. Once again, I want to thank our colleagues for calling this special order and their ongoing leadership on this issue, and call again to my colleagues' attention the impact on our State. See what it does to yours.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished ranking member for giving me this time and for his leadership on the committee. I rise today to talk about why we are where we are today. Many of my colleagues know by now that there are three bills in play, the balanced budget bill that we have been talking about for over a period of time, the continuing resolution, and the appropriations bill. We also know that we would not be here today if we had come to agreement on our appropriations bill. That disagreement has necessitated a continuing resolution. Our Republican colleagues have tied the balanced budget bill to the continuing resolution, and that is why we are here. But if we had our work done, if we had come to agreement on the appropriations bill, there would be no need for a CR. We could debate the values of a balanced budget bill without the pressures of all of these other legislative tactics. The distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, and I am sorry he is not here right now, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations said in his colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], that the President did not agree with our budget because it does not agree with his values, whatever they are. Well, the gentleman is distinguished, and I know in the heat of the discussion sometimes an impression comes across that is less than distinguished, and I think that remark was. Because the President, and we all share the value of providing for our children's future, and the President has been very specific in terms of what his disagreement is and what his values are in this budget negotiation. That is to protect Medicare and Medicaid; that is to protect the environment; that is to protect education, the defense budget, veterans and agriculture. It has been said over and over and over again. So, Mr. Speaker, I think the President has made very clear what his values are for our country and very clear what his values are in this negotiation. The environment is one of the important issues that the President values. I want to reiterate what some of my colleagues have said and reference the President's veto message when he says that he vetoed the bill because the bill includes a 22-percent cut in requested funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, including a 25-percent cut in enforcement that would cripple EPA's efforts to enforce laws against polluters. What this does is make it less safe for our children in terms of clean air and clean water. If there is one thing that parents cannot do for their children it is to control the environment around them, the physical environment around them. If there is one thing that Government can do, it is to enforce environmental laws. That is something we cannot do for ourselves. We can adopt good environmental habits and contribute to protecting the environment, but the polluters never stop polluting under the honor system. We must have a Federal role and a Federal participation to protect the environment. So I thank the President for using the veto on this message. As we all know, veto means I forbid. I thank the President for forbidding this Congress to make the air less clean and the water less clean that our children have to breathe and drink.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, our ranking member, minority member, Democratic member on the committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], has very eloquently pointed out to this Congress why this report should be opposed. Every day those of us in the California delegation, and I am sure many other Members of this House of Representatives, are very proud of the service that the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], has very eloquently pointed out to this Congress why this report should be opposed. Every day those of us in the California delegation, and I am sure many other Members of this House of Representatives, are very proud of the service that the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] gives to the Congress and to the committee, and, as I said, he has eloquently pointed out why the bill should be opposed, and I wish to associate myself with his remarks and do so with great pride. I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose the bill for those reasons and for one additional one. One of the worst provisions, I believe, contained in this bill is one that will lead to the immediate discharge of 1,150 service members who have HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The provision is discriminatory, because it treats people with HIV differently from the way people with other chronic diseases are treated. The current law concerning active service of service members who are nonworldwide deployable, such as those with HIV, are sufficient. Service members become nonworldwide-deployable due to a number of medical reasons, such as diabetes, asthma, heart disease, and cancer. They still perform very significant duties, but are restricted in overseas travel to remain close to adequate medical services. The Secretary of the respective service determines when it is necessary to release a soldier from the military and when they cannot perform their duties. This policy is similar for all service members regardless of their health status. It is inappropriate to single out HIV-positive individuals for premature separation from the armed services and in doing so treat those individuals differently than the military treats other healthy productive members with chronic illnesses. Current military policy has been in place since the Reagan administration and received the support of many senior military officials. The Department of Defense opposes this provision. I hope that our colleagues will join them and do so as well. I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose the fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense authorization bill conference report. There are many reasons to defeat this conference report. One of the worst provisions contained in this bill, supported by Mr. Dornan, will lead to the immediate discharge of the 1,150 service members who have HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The Department of Defense opposes the Dornan provision (section 561) of the House fiscal year 1996 Defense authorization bill and does not believe that service members with HIV present a deployability problem. The DOD believes that members with HIV should be treated as any other service member with a chronic, possibly fatal, medical condition and remain on active duty until such time as they cannot perform their duties. This provision is discriminatory because it treats people with HIV differently from the way people with other chronic diseases are treated. The current laws concerning the active service of service members who are nonworldwide deployable, such as those with HIV, are sufficient. Service members become nonworldwide deployable due to a number of medical reasons, such as diabetes, asthma, heart disease, cancer, and pregnancy. They still perform very significant duties but are restricted in overseas travel to remain close to adequate medical services. The Secretary of the respective service determines when it is necessary to release a soldier from the military as they cannot perform their duties. This policy is similar for all service members, regardless of their health status. It is inappropriate to single out HIV-positive individuals for premature separation from the armed services and in so doing, treat these individuals differently than the military treats other healthy productive members with chronic illnesses. The current DOD policy was initiated and supported by both Reagan and Bush DOD officials. Current military policy has been in place since the Reagan administration and received the support of senior military officials. The policy is the product of serious analysis and deliberation by the Pentagon of the impact of HIV-positive individuals on military readiness. The Clinton administration has only moved to continue these policies, demonstrating bipartisan support for this approach. The presence of HIV infected service members in the military does not adversely affect its combat readiness or efficiency. These troops are still physical healthy are valuable to the armed services. The training and experience of these service members positively adds to the military and should not be taken away as long as they can still perform their duties. These duties must be performed and service members with experience of both overseas and domestic operations would be more qualified to handle a wider variety of duties. The number of service members who are infected with HIV are a small segment of the military. Service members who are HIV-positive are less than one-tenth of one percent of the entire Armed Forces. This small group of people obviously is not affecting the combat readiness of the whole military. I urge my colleagues to oppose the conference report.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. So the Chair's clarification addresses the substance of remarks. I thought the clarification that the Chair gave previously addressed who made the remarks, and that was a former Member of the Senate. The debt ceiling issue is a matter of discussion in the Senate of the United States. The Vice President is an ex officio Member. Not to be argumentative about it, but I think it should be clear how Members proceed in this debate because it is an issue that is discussed in the Senate, the Vice President is an ex officio Member of the Senate, so even though the gentleman was quoting from when he used to be a Member from Tennessee, on an issue then, that issue is recurring now.

Ms. PELOSI. So let us get this straight. A Member of this body; because we are all going to have to abide by this rule, so I want to make sure I understand it; we can quote a Member of the Senate as long as he is not a Member of the Senate any longer. Being President of the Senate, one is not a Member of the Senate?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I have a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair.

Ms. PELOSI. Is the Vice President not the President of the Senate?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] for his leadership on this issue and for his untiring efforts to call to the attention of the American people and this Congress what is at stake in this fight that we are having. I welcome the opportunity to convey to my colleagues what the impact is on my community in San Francisco and on the State of California. Before I do, I wanted to follow up on the remarks of our colleague from Hawaii in terms of generally what these cuts mean in terms of balancing the budget. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that any proposals that are being put forth on the Republican side now do not represent balance in terms of the values that our country holds dear. When we would cut all of the kinds of money we have out of investments in our children, we cannot be talking about a balanced budget. It is unbalanced and imbalanced. In addition to that, I think it is very important to recognize that the proposal being put forth by our Republican colleagues will not fiscally balance the budget either for the some of the reasons that the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] has put forth, but also, we will have a better chance of balancing the budget to the extent that we invest in our children, in their education and in their health and in their well-being. Only then will that investment make our economy more dynamic, a healthy and educated work force, make our country more competitive, and therefore produce the revenues that are necessary to balance the budget within 7 years or beyond, depending on what our basis is. I say that, meaning in the foreseeable future. Mr. Speaker, I do think that the cuts that we are talking about here have to be recognized, as the gentleman has done so eloquently, as to what the impact is on the individual and that individual's family, but also in terms of what the impact is on the local communities which will be impacted by these cuts, their budgets, as well as the economies of those regions when you take away the personal assistance and the assistance that goes to the area. In the State of California, I do not have my California chart right here but I have used it many times to show that under the Gingrich budget, the Republican budget, over $72 billion will be cut over the next 7 years just in the Medicare-Medicaid cuts, we call it MediCal in California, earned-income tax credit, school nutrition programs, those. Not even going into the cuts in appropriation, in terms of protecting the environment or assistance to disadvantaged children in chapter I and on many other cuts that will be made through the appropriation process. Just looking at what is being done on the entitlement, the guaranteed side, guaranteed to this point. It is something that just does not affect those individuals but as I mentioned it affects their local government's budget and the economy of the area. Our State probably, if you take the appropriations into consideration over that 7-year period, will be over $100 billion. Our State budget is about $57 billion a year. So you are talking about nearly 2 years of a budget of the State of California being cut out of the 7-year, and think of what that means to the economy of a State like California. And then just take it to your own States and figure out how it relates to your own States. I know you have all done that and made presentations to that effect. But in California with such a heavy weight, \1/8\ of the country, if it has a very negative impact on California, of its nature it will have a heavy impact on the country over and above what it does to your States individually. In the city of San Francisco, and I have this chart to show some of these figures. As you can see right now, employer coverage and privately purchased insurance covers about 48 percent of our population; uninsured are 21 percent; MediCal, which is Medicaid recipients, represent about 16 percent; Medicare recipients the remainder, 15 percent. If the cuts being suggested are made, that will move our uninsured to nearly 30 percent of the population. In the high 20's to 30 percent of the population of the city will fall into the uninsured. Those people who may need emergency care, the costs are shifted again to employer coverage and privately purchased. That is where we were when President Clinton came in and said, we need to improve, we need to reform health care coverage in our country. that is the real answer. We missed that opportunity because of the complexity of the issue, the partisan nature of the debate, et cetera. But nonetheless, that is the answer to reducing the increase in health care cost and the impact on the public budget. But nonetheless, when you make those cuts, that means 40,000 people, 13,000 families now covered by Medicaid, would be losing their health coverage, would be severely impacted. As a result, even if we say it just goes to 25 percent, the impact would not be just on the poor. according to a recent study sponsored by the National Leadership Coalition on Health Care, cost-shifting would cost the private sector payers $87 billion--now we are talking nationally--over the next 7 years. most of the cost shift would be passed on to workers by employers in the form of forgone wages and an increased cost for health insurance premiums. But to San Francisco. Our San Francisco city comptroller has estimated that the Republican budget will impose $600 million in cuts to the city budget over 7 years, with half of these cuts alone for Medicare and Medicaid programs alone. The city will have little choice, and I say this, substitute the name of any city, will have little choice except to greatly reduce services or increases local taxes. Because of the impact on local budgets and public hospitals, you will have a problem finding lifesaving trauma care if you or a family member are involved in a serious accident requiring emergency care, and that is assuming that you are in this employer coverage and privately purchased care. So it would even affect you in that category. The severe cuts in Medicaid are required in order to fund this massive tax break, and that is what the saddest part of this story is. Because here we are in a situation where we are hitting people--I heard one of my colleagues say earlier, we do not want to be engaged in class warfare. Of course we do not. But fair is fair. Not welfare. But fairness. And it does not seem right. Most people that I know who are in the brackets which would benefit from these tax breaks say, ``We don't need this tax break. We have decided we want to balance the budget, so don't give us this tax break. If that is your value, then don't balance it. But don't take it from the poorest of the poor.'' How could it be fair for the earned-income tax credit for the working poor to be cut, to be eliminated for many families, many people, while we give a tax break at the high end? Now our Republican colleagues will say, ``Oh, we're just taking it away from people without children.'' Well, these young people would like to have a family, too. They are families, they are potential families, and they want to be strong families. So when you talk about the cuts in earned-income tax credit, and I just want to add one more point on this tax fairness issue. The much- heralded family tax credit that our colleagues have talked about in their tax plan, $500 per child, you have heard of it. It ironically is retroactive until October 1 of this year, while the capital gains tax break for the high end is retroactive until January 1, giving them the full benefit of the tax break, while families only get 25 percent of the break, so that $500 tax break for this year is $125, and you cannot collect it until October 1, 1996. Yet if you are in the upper brackets and you get the capital gains reduction, we can accommodate you until January 1 of last year. This is about fairness. It is not about class warfare. But if you are stomping on the people at the low end who need a safety net at some period of time in their lives in order to give a tax break to the wealthy who are not clamoring for it but who do want a balanced budget, you have to have a balance in values, you have to have an investment in children in order to produce the revenues in order to reach balance in a very fair way. I say to our colleagues, look to what it does to individuals. But see what it does to the local budgets in your area and the impact on the economy in your area to have, say in our case, about $100 billion pulled out over the next 7 years. With that, I yield back to my colleague and thank him for the opportunity to present the concerns of my community on this unfair approach to Medicaid, particularly Medicaid, in this instance in this budget.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and for the gentleman's leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise in complete respect, as our chairman knows, for his leadership on our Foreign Operations Subcommittee. As a member of that subcommittee, I have seen him shepherd our bill through many storms. We have this one remaining obstacle. As Members know, we have gone back and forth and back and forth on the issue of family planning in this bill. Frankly, I do not see any reason for us to have to go through this, because this controversy is based on a false premise, the premise that $1 in this bill would be spent to fund abortions. That funding is not allowed by U.S. law, and we do not need any language to further prohibit it. Let us all say that we all agree in this Congress that we abhor, we abhor the family planning methods used in China. I mention that issue because I see my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, rising, and I know that issue is a bone of contention in this bill, but shouldn't be in this Congress. We all agree that it is a gross violation of human rights for the women, indeed, for the families, the people of China, to have to be subjected to China's family planning methods. The practices are atrocious and I will not go into them, except to say that no funding from this bill supports the China program. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, that first, none of the funds would be used for abortion, and second, that none of the funds will be used to support the family planning program which we all abhor in China, the question arises: Why are we holding the poorest of the poor people in the world who depend on family planning funds that are provided in this bill hostage to the Chinese regime's policy. Mr. Speaker, I call this, with all due respect to my colleague, the gentleman from Albama [Mr. Callahan], our distinguished chairman, the make matters worse amendment. We had a situation which was a challenge to us about funding for family planning. We have been fighting that fight. Many people who support family planning but do not support every medical option available to women to terminate a pregnancy support us in oposition to this rule. I am very pleased that staunch anti-choice Members, and I do not say that as a badge of honor, oppose this amendment. The gentleman from Ohio, Tony Hall, and I have been on opposite sides of the choice issue, and he voted against the rule on this bill because of the restrictions it places on family planning. Restrictions that are not per se in the bill, but restrictions which are by way of procedure. If we do not get the funding through this bill now and if we have to wait for an authorization at the end of the session, as we are, waiting to go out for the holidays, what will happen to the family planning funds that are so desperately needed so very soon for so many people in the world? That is why I call this the make matters worse amendment. It tries to resolve a conflict that I do not think should be there in the first place, because we all agree that China's policy is abhorrent and none of our funds should go to it. And because we all know that there is no funding for abortion allowed under United States law. So why can we not come to a sensible conclusion which enables as to fund family planning?