Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the President for vetoing the debt limit extension legislation and the continuing resolution. Clearly, the Congress should pass a fair and clean continuing resolution and debt limit extension free of extreme conditions. The continuing resolution is necessary because the majority has spent much of this year working on their contract rather than passing the Nation's annual spending bills. Most of these bills are hopelessly tied up by legislative riders representing extreme views. Where is the moderation? Thankfully, the President is not willing to be blackmailed into accepting the misguided Republican budget priorities. In particular, why should continuing funding for the Government be tied up over an attempt to impose an $11 a month premium increase on every single Medicare beneficiary? [[Page H 12155]] The Republican continuing resolution also cuts education programs 19 percent below the President's request. Funding for education reform is cut by 40 percent. Funding for safe and drug-free schools is cut by 40 percent. Funding for bilingual education is cut by 51 percent. Funding for research on special education is cut by 25 percent. These proposals are extreme. In my view, rather than a highly partisan and ideological continuing resolution, a bipartisan approach would better serve the American people. Mr. Speaker, let us vote on a clear and fair continuing resolution. Stop the blackmail.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, over the weekend thousands of people gathered in San Francisco, halfway round the world from Israel, to mourn the tragic death of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. I rise to give expression to our grief. Hearing Prime Minister Rabin eulogized by Presidents and Kings and lovingly remembered by his granddaughter, I was reminded of the words of Ecclesiasticus: Now let us praise great men, the heroes of our Nation's history, through whom the Lord established his renown, and revealed his majesty in each succeeding age. Some held sway over kingdoms and made themselves a name by their exploits. Others were sage counselors, who spoke out with prophetic power. Some led the people by their counsels and by their knowledge of the Nation's law; out of their fund of wisdom they gave instruction. The Bible goes on to praise Abraham, Moses, David, and other heroes of the Jewish nation. Yitzhak Rabin with his courage, wisdom, and sacrifice, fits comfortably among those leaders of the Jewish people, not only for today, but for the ages. Thank God for the life of Yitzhak Rabin.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for yielding time, and also for his leadership in putting together this motion to recommit, as well as his leadership on many other issues in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, there are many, many reasons to vote against this continuing resolution and to support the sensible motion to recommit. But I tell my colleagues it takes my breath away to think that our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle as they vote for the continuing resolution today will be voting to increase the Medicare part B premium that senior citizens will have to pay for Medicare starting January 1. By the admission of our colleague from California, Mr. Thomas, the premium will be increased at least over $100 a year. Further to that, this continuing resolution makes a $13-per month increase in the premium. How can we do that to our seniors who are living on the margins? How can we given a tax break to the wealthiest Americans at the same time as we are increasing the premiums over $100 per year starting January 1 for our senior citizens? In addition to the increase in Medicare, there is the famous redtape Istook amendment which places onerous regulatory burdens on Americans striving to exercise their right of freedom of speech to petition their Government. Others have spoken eloquently to that point. I point out that it is still present in its un-American form in this bill. In addition to that, it is important for our colleagues to know what else is cut very seriously in this legislation: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Goals 2000 school reform programs, the President's AmeriCorps National Service program, Community Development Bank Initiative, National Biological Survey, Advanced Technology Program, drug courts and crime prevention block grants. In addition to all of that, we are faced with this decision because the Republicans have not done their work. I commend our colleague for offering this motion to recommit as well as his anticancer-drug legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in praise of Yitzhak Rabin, in sadness over his passing, and in support of the resolution today. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 31, which extends the deepest sympathy of this Congress to the family of Prime Minister Rabin and to the people of Israel. The world lost a great man on November 4, when an assassin's bullets took from our midst a true leader. The eulogies for Yitzhak Rabin have been eloquent and heartfelt. His credentials, his accomplishments, his dedication, and his vision have been lauded by leaders around the world. Listening to these somber words of praise and mourning, of shock and grief, of public and personal memory, I have been struck by the resonance of this loss across diverse populations, across communities and across nations. It is not only the people of Israel who are mourning Prime Minister Rabin's tragic, untimely, and violent death. They have been joined in their grief by people around the world. This loss struck a chord. I have thought deeply about how Yitzhak Rabin touched so many people. He was great in many ways. What stands out about Yitzhak Rabin, to me, what elevates him so far above the rest, was his courage to change. After pursuing one vision, the vision of the warrior, for the majority of his life, Yitzhak Rabin recognized, and then acted on his recognition, that the way to the future was through peace, not through war. He had the courage to change and through that courage, changed the course of the world. The day that the peace agreement was signed on the White House lawn, Yitzhak Rabin proved that there is no conflict too old, too entrenched, or too deep to be resolved. His work and his handshake demonstrated that negotiations and compromise can produce results. He gave impetus to participants in other longstanding conflicts to start talking to their opponents; he gave hope to the victims of conflict that peace is possible. Above all else, Prime Minister Rabin was a realist. He knew that proving peace was possible did not prove that peace was easy. His assassination is a tragic example of how difficult the pursuit for peace can be.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1833, which would ban late-term abortion procedures. I respect and understand my colleagues who may be uncomfortable voting against this legislation. We all hope that the number of abortions performed in this country can be reduced. But today's debate should be about a family's right to make the devastating choice to end a wanted, yet terminal pregnancy safely and with dignity. Medical misinformation has been spread freely with regard to the late-term abortion procedure, which was designed to minimize complications, pain, and trauma. The title of the legislation itself is fabricated and medically inaccurate. Proponents of this legislation would have us believe that careless women carrying healthy fetuses choose this procedure because they simply neglected to have an abortion early in the pregnancy. They have obviously not spoken with any woman who has had to experience the pain and trauma of discovering she was carrying a fetus with severe abnormalities, incompatible with life. These are women who wanted more than anything to have and love a child. For many in the tragic circumstance, this abortion procedure is the safest option for them and their hopes for future fertility. This bill is so extreme that it makes no exception for cases in which the banned procedure would be necessary to preserve a woman's health or even her life. In their relentless quest to ban all abortions, the proponents of this bill show a remarkable indifference toward women's lives. Passage of this legislation would represent the first time in our country that a specific medical procedure has been banned. This bill is unwanted and unneeded Government intrusion into medicine and into the family. To those who campaigned in this Congress against Government presence in our families, I ask how can you support a bill that mandates family decisions and undermines women's fertility. A family's decision to undergo this procedure is painful and personal. To limit their medical options in the face of this tragic circumstance is heartless. This bill not only limits women's childbearing and reproductive rights, it risks our health and our lives. This is unconscionable and wrong. An exception must be made for the life, health, and future fertility of the mother. This is a decision to be made by a woman, her family, her God, and her doctor. This is not a decision for Congress to make. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1833.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the exercise that we are going through here in this budget battle reminds me of the limbo. How far will the Republicans go to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans? First we see the pole at a level they have to go under where they will affect America's seniors, cutting benefits to seniors while increasing their premiums in Medicare. Next, Medicaid, where they remove a guarantee for health care to America's seniors, at the same time removing standards for nursing homes. Let us move that pole down as the Republicans come around in this dance again, and see what they do for children. Reductions in school nutrition programs, reductions in student aid programs, removing millions of children from guaranteed health care while removing Medicare as an entitlement for them. And what about those children's families? Here they come again, lower the pole in this limbo dance. How low can you go to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans, while raising taxes on millions of Americans under $30,000 a year? Mr. Speaker, today it even gets worse. In addition to this limbo dance, today the Republicans are going to hit Americans where they live by cutting over $5 billion in housing, and that, Mr. Speaker, shows just how low they will go to increase homelessness in order to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill today.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this most unwise legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and I encourage our colleagues to vote against it for two reasons at least. One reason has been discussed by our colleagues on both sides of the aisle--the rule does not allow the language that is contained in the legislation about Azerbaijan to be considered. As our colleague from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] has said, this rule waives all points of order. Our colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], made a good- faith effort, I believe, in our conference to moderate the language that he was suggesting for the bill. Nonetheless, all of his good intentions notwithstanding, the legislation still allows for assistance to go to the Government of Azerbaijan. That is in opposition to the legislation that was passed in this body in the late-night debate where many Members weighed in in support of not having the funds going to the Government. A compromise passed which allows the funds to go nongovernmental organizations to support the refugees in that area. So I hope that the House would have the chance, once again, to work its will on this issue so that all sides could be heard on it. The more moderate amendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] could be considered, but then the House could come closer to its original position. I also rise in opposition to the rule and urge our colleagues to vote against it because the House bill insists on retaining the antifamily family planning provisions in the foreign operations appropriations bill. I have great respect for the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan]. He masterfully crafted our legislation this year, but I disagree with him and with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], whom I also respect. I know the depth of their commitment on this issue. I just happen to disagree. I think their language stands in the way of our support of international family planning. In his early days in office, President Clinton signed an executive order lifting the Mexico City policy restrictions. There is no evidence that the number of abortions, either legal or illegal, declined under the Reagan era policy even though that was the goal of the policy. If we reject this rule, we will have an opportunity instead to vote on a proposal by our colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. Mr. Obey's proposal represents a good compromise and is in furtherance of the goals we all have in reducing the number of abortions in the world. Mr. Obey's amendment states that notwithstanding other provisions in the act, the funds appropriated in this act may not be made available for the U.N. population fund unless the President certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that the U.N. population fund will terminate all family planning activities in the People's Republic of China no later than May 1, 1996. For these and other reasons, I urge our colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, this morning I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1833. As a mother of five wonderful children who supports a woman's right to choose, I respect the opposition that our colleagues have to that right to choose. Indeed, we have had some very heated debates on that subject on this floor. But today we are breaking new ground, and it is, I think, most unfortunate for America's women and America's families that we have a bill, before us, the so-called partial birth abortion act. Mr. Speaker, I strenuously object to the procedures of this House that would allow a bill with that name and that misrepresentation to come to the floor. The makers of that motion know that all abortions taking place in the third trimester are for reasons of serious fetal abnormality or risk to the life or health of the mother. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, though medical science has developed sophisticated testing to determine potential medical problems in the pregnancy, often these tests are not fully accurate until later in the pregnancy. Some women may undergo several ultrasounds and other tests and be told that all is well, only to have a devastating anomaly detected at the 28th week of pregnancy or beyond. Other women may be diagnosed with cancer or kidney failure late in pregnancy or have a previous condition such as brittle diabetes suddenly flare-up so seriously that their own health and even their lives are threatened. These women are faced with the painful and deeply personal choice of ending a wanted pregnancy. The intact DNE abortion procedure which H.R. 1833 seeks to outlaw is for many women in these circumstances the safest medical option available. It saves the life and protects the health and safety of the mother. This is also used when the fetus cannot sustain life. It also enables the mother to go on more safely to have other children, which outlawing this procedure might prevent her from doing. The bill also does not take into account the indescribable agony faced by women and families eagerly awaiting a wanted child upon discovering late in pregnancy that their dreams are shattered. Under this bill, women could be forced to continue their pregnancy, even if it is certain, certain, Mr. Speaker, that the fetus will not survive birth. This is cruel, inhumane, and medically inappropriate. The bill is bad medicine and bad policy. I know that this is a painful and personal matter for the people affected by it. It should not be a decision by this Congress. It should be a decision by a woman, her family, her doctor, and her God, and I urge our colleagues to oppose this legislation and leave the decision with the family.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great respect for the deeply felt commitment of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] for their position, but in strong opposition to their proposal. You have heard it over and over again, and I will say it again: Current law is already antiabortion. This Callahan-Smith provision only makes it antifamily planning. Existing law prohibits use of U.S. funds for abortion activities. Our colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], pointed out that for 20 years there have been adequate protections in foreign aid law and policy, the Helms amendment. The House language is extreme because it would defund organizations that provide legal health services. Legitimate and effective women's health organizations would be punished under this amendment simply for providing family planning information. The target of the House provision is the U.N. Population Fund. Operating in 140 countries, UNFPA is the principal multilateral organization providing worldwide family planning and population assistance. UNFPA assistance is used for family planning and assistance and maternal and child care in the poorest and most remote regions of the world. Since its founding, UNFPA has saved the lives of countless women and children. Further limitations on the U.S. contributions to UNFPA are unnecessary. No United States funds can be used in UNFPA's China program. No UNFPA funding is linked in any way to family planning abuses in China. UNFPA does not condone or cover up coercion in China. The United States Government should not, as a matter of principle, hold family planning and UNFPA hostage to the legitimate concerns we all hold and share about forced abortions in China. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget reconciliation bill before the House today. In my view, the Republican plan brings nightmares to the American dream of a better life for our children and sets the wrong priorities for the Nation. While I support the goal of a balanced budget, I do not support the specific provisions of the Republican budget. The bill is shaped by the Republican priority of promoting the interests of the advantaged over the disadvantaged and average working Americans. In my view, a bipartisan budget bill, rather than this highly partisan and ideological budget, would better serve the American people. tax priorities The Republican budget cuts taxes for corporations and the wealthiest Americans by $245 billion. More than half of these tax breaks go to those making over $100,000 a year, including major tax giveaways for wealthy investors and corporations. Rather than asking corporations to be part of the shared sacrifice, the budget calls for expanded business tax subsidies of $37 billion. At the same time, the budget would raise taxes by $23 billion on 14 million low-wage workers and their families by cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit. Thus, low-income working families supporting more than 23 million children will have their taxes raised. In fact, under this budget, taxes go up for families with incomes below $30,000. Taxes should not be raised on working families in order to finance tax breaks for businesses and those who are well-off. medicare By far, the largest portion of the spending cuts in the Republican budget come from an assault on the two major Federal health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, which together account for half of the spending cuts in the budget. The Republican Medicare plan cuts $180 billion more than what is needed to make the trust fund solvent, inflicts excessive new premiums on beneficiaries, forces low-income seniors into managed care, repeals important Federal nursing home standards, decimates safety-net and teaching hospitals, and weakens fraud and abuse protections. The Democratic Medicare alternative, which was defeated in the House, would have protected the financial stability of the Medicare Program, kept premiums affordable, provided seniors a choice of responsible plans, maintained safety-net and teaching hospitals, expanded preventive health benefits, and strengthened anti-fraud and abuse protection. Medicaid cuts compound the problems caused by the Medicare cuts. Poor or near-poor elderly (those with monthly incomes below $625 per month) may no longer be assured that Medicaid will provide cost-sharing protection for their Medicare premiums, copayments and deductibles. These low-income elderly are doubly hurt because Medicare premiums and copayments will increase substantially at the same time that the Medicaid Program stops paying for them. The bill also repeals Federal nursing home standards and directs States to adopt whatever standards they choose. With the magnitude of spending cuts, States will be unlikely to develop and enforce standards comparable to current Federal guidelines. The last thing we need to do is go back to the dark days of nursing home abuses that led to the current Federal standards. medicaid The Republican budget repeals the Medicaid Program which provides health security to 36 million low-income Americans. Half of the beneficiaries are children, 15 percent are people with disabilities, and 12 percent are elderly. Medicaid currently pays for more than half of all nursing home care. The Medicaid Program is replaced by a block grant program where States would determine eligibility requirements and the types of benefits to be provided. Federal payments to States would be cut by $182 million or 30 percent from projected spending under current law. Consumers Union estimates that the Medicaid provisions in this budget will result in 12 million Americans losing health insurance coverage. Because public hospitals and trauma centers are dependent on the Medicaid Program, all Americans would suffer a loss of essential health care when they need it most, while experiencing a serious, medical emergency. The last Congress engaged in an intensive debate on how to provide universal health care coverage. Unfortunately, due to the complexity of the issue and the partisan nature of much of the opposition, no legislation was adopted. Nonetheless, there was a shared goal by most Members of Congress to expand health care coverage. Now, the Republican majority is about to take the most dramatic step backwards for guaranteed health coverage in American history. welfare The welfare provisions in this budget bill would cut off benefits to 4.8 million children. These cuts are mean-spirited and cheat children out of good health, good nutrition, and a bright future. This budget cuts food stamps for families with children by $28 billion, in my home State of California, the Food Stamp Program would be cut by $3.7 billion. The Republican budget would cut foster care and adoption for vulnerable children in the United States by over $6 billion. Where is our commitment to help our poorest and most vulnerable children? The Republicans would have us balance our budget on their backs, which are not strong enough to carry that terrible weight. housing The Republican budget would dramatically heighten the crisis in America's cities. A walk down the street of any American city today presents a graphic portrait of how we need to be increasing our commitment to providing affordable housing. Homelessness is on the rise and America's working families are the fastest growing portion of the homeless population. And what impact will this Republican budget have? It will decrease the availability of affordable housing by decreasing the tools used by the private and non-profit sectors in the battle to end homelessness. For example, the Republican budget sunsets the low-income housing tax credit. This credit has played a critical role in the production and rehabilitation of affordable housing across the country. This year's appropriations bill passed by the House cuts housing programs by at least 26 percent overall and homeless assistance programs by 40 percent. In the absence of Federal funding to provide access to safe, decent, and affordable housing for all Americans, the tax credit is an essential tool for local communities and non-profit organization struggling to house our population. But the Republican budget does not stop here. It essentially guts the Community Reinvestment Act, one of the most effective tools we currently have to promote investment in low-income communities. This program has increased self-sufficiency in low-income communities around the country and it has had tangible results. There are more small businesses, more jobs, and more housing in communities throughout America as a result of this program. This budget will have an adverse impact on the ability of American communities to build and to rebuild themselves. student loans A college education used to be a part of the American dream. In today's economy, it has become an absolute necessity. And not every young person has the means to achieve this. Nearly one-half of all the Nation's college students depend on tuition loans to help pay their way. Yet provisions in this legislation would result in penalties to those who take advantage of these aid programs. Elimination or drastic reduction of the Direct Student Loan Program would have a devastating effect on a great number of schools. Direct loans are being praised by students and administrators for speed, efficiency and lack of bureaucracy. It is a program that is good for our students and good for the country. The bill increases the cost of education for parents by increasing the variable interest rate on parent loans. An increase in student loan fees makes it virtually impossible for schools not to pass on the cost of their loan volume fees to the students. The Republican majority is attempting to give tax cuts to corporations and the rich at the expense of our Nation's children and our Nation's future. These extreme cuts could completely undermine the stability of the student loan program. pension assets The Republican budget allows corporations to siphon billions of dollars out of worker's pension funds. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates companies would take up to $40 billion of workers' pension funds through this new corporate loophole. Only last year, the administration proposed--and Congress on a bipartisan basis enacted--safeguards to tighten pension fund security in underfunded plans by preventing manipulation of the funding rules. The Republican budget undermines these important reforms by encouraging companies to deplete pension assets dramatically. If companies remove pension assets, thereby jeopardizing the retirement years of American workers, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has to pay them. This huge gift to corporations would increase risk to American taxpayers. We cannot afford another huge Government bailout. Taxpayers have already bailed out the Savings and Loan industry. Yet, the Republican budget would endanger American taxpayers and threaten the security of pensions for American workers in order to provide yet another tax break for big business. The Environment The devastation to our Nation's public lands and natural resources in this bill is beyond understanding. Under the guise of balancing the budget, programs to protect the environment have been fleeced while great Government give-aways remain cloaked and untouched. The Republicans can open up, sell, and privatize our resources, but they are unable to reach into the deep pockets that pad Federal subsidies to make the cuts that truly should be made. There are plenty of other alternatives available to achieve this balancing act. Mining law, grazing law, and timber sales are all areas where fair cuts could have been made. But, instead, this budget yields to special interests and continues Government giveaways to those who should share in the sacrifice necessary to balance the budget. How can we truly reconcile these costs to the American taxpayer that will not, but should be cut--the millions of dollars in subsidies and lost revenues from the private use of our public lands and resources? This is a strange way to do business: Sell your assets at fire sale prices and then get below-market rates for the major assets you keep. The American taxpayer owns our natural resources--they belong to us today and to our children tomorrow. But, the American taxpayer loses in this bill. We lose the investment we have made for scores of years to protect our resources, and we lose our investment in the future. Statement of Values Mr. Chairman, the Federal budget should be a statement of our national values. This budget does not meet the test of fairness demanded by the American people. It reaffirms the Republican Party as the party of wealth, power, and privilege. This bill raises taxes on average American families in order to provide tax breaks for corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Whether its Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, student loans, pension assets, housing or the environment, the values expressed in this bill do not reflect the fairness of the American people. To adopt his budget would be to move this country in the wrong direction. I urge a vote against this budget.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my colleagues a disturbing news story. The Associated Press reported today that a chilling backlash against battered women has formed in this country since O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder. Advocates for abused women say that calls to domestic violence hotlines have dropped sharply in some States because women fear their claims will not be taken seriously. In the aftermath of the Simpson trial, several jurors stated for millions of viewers to hear that domestic violence has nothing to do with murder. Yet over 4,000 women each year are killed by husbands or partners who have abused them. Domestic violence has everything to do with murder, everything to do with abuse, pain, suffering, loss of self-esteem, and violence against women. The passage of the Violence Against Women Act was a great achievement in the fight against domestic violence. Public awareness remains high. Communities are working to see that this problem is eliminated and that victims of abuse have somewhere to turn or a safe place to go. I am pleased to report that in my district the San Francisco Police Department recently announced the formation of a special unit to investigate domestic violence cases, one of only two such special units in the State of California. But domestic violence is still our problem. It will be our problem so long as it exists. We as legislators are responsible for letting women in this country know that we taken them seriously--that there are funds and resources available for their needs, that they don't have to hide their problem or be afraid to report cases of abuse. I urge my colleagues to support full funding of the Violence Against Women Act, and to take every opportunity to speak out against this unspeakable crime against women, not just during National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, but every day.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to rise in opposition to the reconciliation bill that is before the House today and tomorrow. For those who are not aware of this, the reconciliation bill is the budget bill, and in it we are supposed to reconcile taxes and spending. I believe that a budget bill should be a statement of our national values and how we spend our money is a statement of those values, and how we tax and who we tax is a statement of our sense of values in our country. I do not think that this reconciliation bill before the House meets any test that our constituents would have as a statement of values, a statement of national values, and a statement of a sense of fairness in our country. Indeed, in trying to achieve a balanced budget financially, we are indeed producing a lopsided budget way out of balance in terms of values and meeting the needs of our country. Mr. Speaker, the other day I was at an event and they asked me what the three biggest challenges to America were. What are the three biggest issues? As a Member of Congress, they wanted to know what I would name as the three issues. I said, that is easy. The three biggest issues in our country are our children, our children, and our children. The sad thing about this legislation before us, the Republican majority reconciliation bill, is the devastation that it wreaks on children. Our colleagues are fond of saying on the other side of the aisle that this puts us on a glide path to a balanced budget. It puts us on a glide path to a crash. Because unless we invest in our children, we will never have a balanced budget. Unless we invest in our children and our families, we will not be able to produce the productive people that we need to keep our country competitive. Instead, we will continue, as this bill calls for, a continuation of the Republican notion of trickle down. But it is on the issue of children that I would like to speak this evening. Because, as I say, if it is a statement of values of what we stand for as a country, it should be a statement of how we care for our children. I do not think any of our listeners or viewers would consider it a statement of their values to cut millions of children out of Medicaid, guaranteed health care, in order to give a tax break to the wealthiest people in America. At the same time, I do not think our constituents consider it a statement of their values for us to give a tax break that the overwhelming majority of it benefits the top 6 percent earners in our country, the wealthiest people in our country. Do not take it from me, though. Listen to what a Republican has to say. My colleague from Florida already referenced Senator Specter's remarks when he said, ``Much of the pain of the spending cuts goes to the elderly, the young and the infirm, while allowing tax cuts for corporate America.'' Senator Specter then also went on to say, ``I suggest to my Republican colleagues that we all rethink support for a combination of tax cuts and spending cuts that may lead to the perception of the Republican Party as the party of wealth, power and privilege, and not the party of ordinary workers.'' As you can see here, Jack Kemp also had his concerns about what is in this bill. Jack Kemp, a leading light in the Republican Party, said, ``I hope you guys do not go too far on removing the earned income tax credit, because that is a tax increase on low-income workers and the poor, which is unconscionable at this time.'' Of course, the earned income tax credit is cut back in this bill. That is a tax credit that is given to the working poor in our country. Some of us view it as a subsidy for an unfair low minimum wage in our country, and it benefits America's businesses as much as it benefits the families. But no matter what, it does benefit the families. But we have to cut that back--a tax credit for the working poor--in order to give a tax break to the wealthiest people in our country. Who was it who said that, to listen to this debate, one would think that the poor people had too much money and the rich people did not have enough? But let us get on to the children. The Republican budget repeals the Medicaid program as we know it which provides health security to 36 million low-income Americans. Half of the beneficiaries are children. Consumers Union estimates that the Medicaid provisions in this bill will result in 12 million Americans losing health insurance coverage in the cutbacks that are proposed. The majority are uninsured children. Mr. Speaker, I want to just, in closing, say that we all care about our children. We want the best for our children. But unless we understand that the well-being of our own children is directly connected to the well-being of poor children of America, our own children will not be well-served. That is the reconciliation we must provide for our country. I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Republican glidepath to a crash.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, in listening to the debate I must ask our Republican colleagues, who are you trying to convince? In listening to the defense of your Medicare cuts, methinks thou doth protest too much. But it is understandable, when it must be a bitter pill to swallow to cut senior citizens' benefits, increase their premiums to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans. Indeed, as the Speaker calls the tax cut, the crown jewel of the contract. America's senior citizens and disabled people depend on Medicare for their health and security. The choice before the House today is between the Republican plan, which would threaten their security, and the Democratic plan, which would protect health and security for America's seniors. In summary, the Republican bill cuts $180 billion more than what is needed to make the trust fund solvent, inflicts excessive new premiums on beneficiaries, forces low-income seniors into managed care, repeals important Federal nursing home standards, decimates the safety net in teaching hospitals, and weaken protections. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because I object to the limitation it places on debate. Mr. Speaker, in order to keep the American people in the dark, the Republican leadership has demanded a closed process which stifles debate and shuts out the voices of those affected by this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because of the process, but also because of the substance of the legislation. The Republican proposal assaults the quality, security, affordability, and accessibility of health care to our seniors. This legislation is not legitimate, because it has not been subject to a period of public comment. It is not responsible, because it imposes higher cost and benefit cuts for America's seniors to give a $270 billion tax break to America's wealthiest. This is a sad day in America, because the Republican leadership is undermining the dignity of our seniors, undermining the quality of our health care, and undermining the greatness of our country. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, to vote ``no'' on the bill. I urge our colleagues to support Medicare, yes; tax cuts no.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest to H.R. 39, legislation to reauthorize the Magnuson Act. Since it was originally enacted, the Magnuson Act has been the premier legislative tool for ocean fisheries management. This bipartisan reauthorization bill goes a long way to address the problems associated with overfishing, bycatch and waste of fish, and fish habitat protection. However, we need to further strengthen the bill. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland reinforces the bill's overfishing provisions by redefining optimum yield. Currently, more than 40 percent of our Nation's fish species are overfished. The Gilchrest amendment proposes a new definition of optimum yield so that short-term social and economic factors would not take precedence over long-term social, economic, and ecological health. Marine fisheries are one of our country's greatest and most valuable natural resources and they must be conserved for long-term economic and ecological sustainability. The Gilchrest amendment shares this goal. I urge my colleagues to strengthen the Magnuson Act by supporting the Gilchrest amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for the amendment offered by Mr. Miller to H.R. 39. This important amendment will help maintain the economic viability of family fishing operations throughout the United States, and by doing so, help keep our coastal, community-based fishing fleets alive. The Miller amendment to H.R. 39 requires fishery management plans to consider historic participation and the needs of coastal fleets and the communities they support. When the Magnuson Act became law in 1976, its chief goal was to develop U.S. fishing capacity and to promote efficient use of our fisheries. Since then, fisheries management plans have favored larger boats with huge capacities at the expense of smaller, family-run operations. By requiring that fishery management plans consider the participation and needs of smaller operations, we will ensure a diversified fleet throughout our country which maximizes jobs, provides greater economic benefits to our communities, and results in less waste and lower capital costs. I am proud to represent a congressional district with a long history of active family fishing operations. Each year, millions of visitors to northern California enjoy the fruits of the sea which are a result of long hours and hard work. This amendment supports these family operations and ensures that their sector of the coastal fishing economy will be strengthened. I urge my colleagues to support the Miller amendment and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 39.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to amplify the voices of my constituents in two ways. First of all, I am delivering 10,783 petitions gathered by community leaders in my district in opposition to the Republican Medicare legislation. These petitions say yes to Medicare and no to the $270 billion Republican cut in the Medicare Program in order to pay for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest of Americans. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from one of my constituents who is a physician who very eloquently and clearly presents the case for many physicians who oppose the actions of the AMA. I have had serious objections to the substance of the Republican proposal and the process. By blanking out statements from my constituents and giving access to the AMA I think a disservice was paid to the Americans who depend on Medicare. I was particularly appalled by the waltzing in of the AMA and the golden handshake they received as opposed to the handcuffs the senior citizens received when they tried to make their concerns known. My constituents, Dr. Levine, says as follows, and in the interests of time, Mr. Speaker, I will place this entire letter in the Record. The letter referred to is as follows: September 27, 1995. FAX memo to: Congressperson Nancy Pelosi. Re Medicare ``reform'' legislation. Dear Congressperson Pelosi. I am extremely concerned as the current Republican-initiated Medicare reform package goes through Congress, and I wanted to send you this letter in order to give you my perspective on the proposed legislation as a practicing physician in your district. I have received literature recently from the AMA urging my support of the package, because they believe it to be ``doctor friendly.'' Certainly, certain portions of the proposed legislation, such as long-overdue antitrust reforms, etc., appear to be doctor-friendly. But I believe that these colleagues of mine in organized medicine are fundamentally in error. Their error derives from the relative lack of many officials in organized Medicine with actual experience with for-profit managed care. If these colleagues of mine were sufficiently so experienced, they would see the Republican proposals for what they really are--a scheme for forcing virtually all Medicare recipients into managed care. I am not saying that managed care in principle is bad: I would be the first to agree that many of its goals in principle are wonderful. But let me share with you the reality of managed care in actual practice. First, insurance companies in California have been making a transition to for- profit managed care plans. This is because the profits they derive from these products are enormous. Basically, what managed care boils down to in practice is that the insurance company evades the basic job of an insurance company, which is assuming risk. Rather, in managed care, the insurance company simply skims off a healthy percentage of the premium dollar up front, and shifts all the financial risk of providing health care to the physicians and hospitals with which they contract. The insurance company has no downside financial risk, and in California organizations such as ``Wellpoint,'' into which [[Page H 10300]] Blue Cross would like to convert all of its business, acknowledge that as much as \1/3\ of the premium dollar goes to ``administration'' rather than patient care. Faced with a diminishing piece of the premium dollar pie, physicians and hospitals dependent upon managed care dollars for survival are constrained to deny care to those in need. Primary care physicians are compensated by ``capitation,'' meaning that they receive only a fixed monthly fee for caring for each patient. This fact has resulted in California in a lot more medicine being practiced by telephone. In addition, in many plans, a significant percentage of the primary care physician's capitation payment is withheld, with all or a portion of the sum returned to the physician at year's end, depending upon the ``loss experience'' of the group. And what ``loss experience'' means is simply that the more patients referred for tests, consultations, surgery, etc., the greater the loss experience. So there are powerful financial incentives built into the system for primary care physicians who act as ``gatekeepers'' for referrals, to deny care. In addition, managed care bureaucracies keep track of each primary care physician's financial track record, and have the right to terminate a physician whose loss experience is not to their liking. Managed care organizations are under no legal obligation to inform consumers of these facts when giving them a sales pitch to join an HMO. And if you look at the situation here in California, insurance companies have been aggressively advertising Medicare HMO products with offers that seem too good to be true. But in the end, in practice, what for-profit managed care organizations really do is to siphon money away from medical care, and redirect those dollars into multimillion dollar CEO compensation packages and huge bureaucracies. Do Medicare HMO's save the Federal Government any money over the existing system? Look for any proof of that; there isn't any. When I look at the Republican proposals for Medicare reform, what I see first is that the deductible will be made so large as to make the overwhelming majority of Medicare recipients join for-profit HMO's who promise them a ``no- deductible'' plan. The business of other options such as medical savings accounts, etc. will never amount to anything in reality. I cannot understand why my buddies in the AMA cannot see that. If the California experience with HMO's is any indicator, there will be a merger and acquisition frenzy as larger HMO's swallow up smaller ones. More and more dollars will be spent on these mergers rather than patient care (When, for example, Health Net and Qual-Med merged, certain members of their respective boards of directors shared $110,000,000 in stock and cash ``compensation''). What will result is an oligopoly of three or four huge insurance companies controlling all medical care. And the primary factor determining success or failure in any competition in this marketplace will not be quality of care, but simply the profit picture of the company, which is inversely related to expenditures on patient care. It is for these among other reasons that I am highly wary of the Republican plan. I strongly suspect that the Republicans are primarily doing the bidding of a few huge insurance companies who plan to be the major players in the Medicare marketplace once it is ``privatized.'' From this perspective, I am also highly suspicious of the provision in the proposed legislation to limit noneconomic malpractice litigation awards. This may surprise you, coming as it does from a physician. But according to my malpractice insuror, in California the largest growth area in medical malpractice suits is in litigation against the formerly-low- risk-specialty of primary care for failure to timely diagnose and refer to specialists. Does this mean that managed care in changing practice patterns in primary care as regards the timeliness in which patients are referred for specialty care? I don't think that it takes a brain surgeon to figure that one out! Lawsuits filed against physicians are inevitably filed against the HMO's as well, and particularly after the 75+ million dollar judgment against Health Net in the marrow transplant denial malpractice case, the HMO's are quite aware that they have become the ``deep pockets.'' From this perspective, I view such malpractice reform as contained in the Republican proposals primarily as a license for HMO's to be negligent, confident in the notion that a maximum $250,000 liability in almost all cases represents a relatively small cost of doing business. As more and more doctors become virtual employees of for-profit HMO's, they will realize that malpractice reform was primarily meant to benefit their employers! Right now Medicare works well, returning a high percentage of dollars spent in actual benefits to recipients. The increased spending on Medicare is primarily a function of the aging of the population and the fact that advances in medicine have made possible the successful treatment of many conditions not amenable to such treatment in 1964. While I would agree that the system requires reform, I would caution you that the Republican plan is simply a scheme for diverting billions of Federal dollars earmarked for Medicare recipients into the hands of a few at the expense of many. If you are unsure of this, just try to introduce some elements into the legislation that would insure that a certain percentage of Medicare dollars are to be spent on patient care, and not diverted by profiteering insurance giants. You will find that your Republican colleagues will be spouting all kinds of pure garbage in defense of their true benefactors, who would love to be an unregulated industry! Sincerely, Marc A. Levina, M.D. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown].

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks, and I ask our colleagues to vote ``yes'' for Medicare and ``no'' for tax cuts.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. That is laissez-faire. Too bad.

Ms. PELOSI. I think the polls are showing that the Republican proposal to cut Medicare in order to fund a tax break for the wealthiest Americans is not a popular proposal in all of America. I want to take up on a point you mentioned about defense. Certainly we all, as we stipulated earlier, we must address the waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare, as President Clinton tried to do and as we will all, I think, in a bipartisan way address, and let us also stipulate that we are all patriotic Americans and we want to have a very strong national defense. But as we try to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, why, when the Republican majority is trying to look for inefficiencies in Government, do they take defense off the table? Maybe there are no inefficiencies in the defense budget. It could be. I doubt it, that there are no inefficiencies in any part of the budget. But why is it not on the table? So when we say to senior citizens in order to balance the budget in x number of years and give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans, you will have to pay a higher premium per month and that could amount to several hundred dollars a year which, contrary to what my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle may think, is a great deal of money to our senior citizens, while at the same time we are saying but we will hold harmless the entire defense budget and not look there for any inefficiencies or any ways that we can cut. So it is about process, it is about the process of a closed process with a stealth plan. It is about substance, it is about what this proposal will do, and it is about priorities. If we do not respect the contributions that have been made by our senior citizens and also recognize that unless we invest in people, as our colleague from California, Mr. Farr, said, what is the use of balancing the budget? Our people are sick, our children are undereducated. If we define a strong country, it certainly is in terms of our national defense and our military might, but it most certainly is even more so in terms of the health, education, and well-being of our people. I would like to yield back to my colleague from California, Mr. Farr, to further pursue that line of thought.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the gentlewoman makes that comment because at the same time that this is happening, as lobbyists are having very special access in this process, the Republican majority is at the same time saying anyone who gets a grant from the Federal Government should not be able to lobby the Federal Government. Certainly nobody who gets a grant from the Federal Government should use any of those Federal grant dollars to lobby the Federal Government, and they must use it for the purpose of the grant. But just because an organization has competed in a process and won a grant does not mean they have abdicated their rights as a citizen of our country to be able to petition government. That is the right of a democracy. The public's participation in the formation of public policy is what a democracy is all about as much as a free election of representatives. So when we talk about process, we are talking about a stealth plan which continues to be substituted. As recently as 48 hours ago, the plan became a new plan. And as recently as the AMA walking in that office, there was another change made. So we have this stealth plan and then we have a process where there are no open hearings where consumers can come in and citizens can come in and say this is how this would affect me, or professional judgment opinion would say this is how this would affect the delivery of service. And on top of that, we are going to squelch the voices of people who have participated in our process and have won grants. And yet, Mr. Speaker, when we ask them would they apply that to the Defense Department, which awards contracts into the hundreds of billions of dollars, they say, oh, no, not the Defense Department. Well, if we are going to do it to people on the domestic side, then we should do it on the defense side or not do it at all. And I prefer that. I prefer that the people who get government contracts have the ability to speak out, whether it is defense contracts or other contracts. But in this situation, the defense contractors are off the table, just as they are in the budget priorities.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman mentioned earlier, if this is not all about giving a tax break to the wealthiest Americans, why do they not just take the tax cut off the table? Let us address getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid. Let us address the delivery of health care to our senior citizens, because that is mostly what we are talking about here, outside the arena of ``We will take this money and we will spend it on a tax cut.'' If that is not what the purpose of this is, let us eliminate it. Within the Republican Party there are many people saying it is not right to do this; we ought not have that tax cut. But the majority of the Republicans are insisting on it, because that is what this is about. They want to give the tax cut. They are going to where they can get many people who are paying into the system, and that is our seniors, and asking them to pay more into the system for their health care. It would be a more fair and honest debate if we could have this debate without a tax cut on the table.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for his speech. I hope the gentleman will continue to contribute to our discussion this evening. I commend the gentleman for his hard work in the district and congratulate him on this collection of signatures on the cards of real people, real grassroots people speaking out about the injustices of the Medicare and Medicaid cuts. As the gentleman says, of course, we all stipulate that we must address the issue of waste, fraud and abuse. Indeed, President Clinton last year in his comprehensive health care reform addressed these issues. This was rejected by the Republicans. The President addressed the issue of the shoring up of the trust fund, of eliminating waste, fraud and abuse, and by moving forward with a comprehensive health plan, universal access to health care for all Americans, really took the bull by the horns in saying this is the only way we are going to address the rising cost of health care in America, is by making health care more available to many more of our citizens. What is interesting is that today the reason we have the hearings in our district that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey] participated in, was because our people really could not come to Washington to be able to be heard by the committees of jurisdiction on this issue. Some came and spoke on the lawn where we had our hearings outside, and some came and spoke in our district. It is very sad that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were not there to hear what these experts had to say about the Republican proposal, indeed, what the individuals had to say about the insecurity that these proposals brought to their lives. But what is interesting is what has happened in the last 24 hours here in Washington, DC. Within the last 24 hours, senior citizens who came to a hearing room where Medicare and Medicaid were being written up into legislation, legislative language, were ejected from the meeting with the assistance of the police. These senior citizens were ejected from the meeting. Within a number of hours, representatives of the AMA were waltzed into the Speaker's office to talk about what they wanted out of the Republican Medicare bill. They came out and said ``We picked up, the AMA, we picked up $3 billion. $3 billion. So we support the plan.'' Nothing about what this does to undermine the delivery of health care services in America. ``We, the AMA, we picked up $3 billion.'' Well, guess who is paying the $3 billion? Those seniors who got ejected by the police from the hearing, because that same day, as the AMA is celebrating their $3 billion windfall, the Committee on Energy and Commerce voted a $25 per month increase in premiums for senior citizens in America to pay for the increase that they gave the AMA, and to also pay for the tax break, over 50 percent of which goes to the 6 percent highest earners in our country. Before I yield to my colleague, I want to state that I will be placing in the Record the full statements of Bruce Livingston, executive director of Health Access, and other representatives of various groups. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to our colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey], who was present at the hearing, who had some [[Page H 9876]] of her constituents there, and who has been a relentless fighter in this fight. She brings dignity and pride to the State of California by her service on the Committee on the Budget, where she represents so very well the values of the people of her district.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I do not support his level of cuts.