Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. We talked earlier about the middle income, middle-aged people in America, which includes very many people who are the backbone of society, making such a valuable contribution to the greatness of our country, as they try to do their own jobs, educate their children and feel some responsibility for their aging parents, as you call them, the sandwich generation. They are so at risk not only under the Medicare cuts but under Medicaid cuts. I think many people are not aware, they think of Medicaid as a poor people program. But very many seniors benefit greatly from Medicaid, whether it is long-term health care or, for example, 5 million American women have their Medicare premiums paid by Medicaid, 5 million American women. Of course that is not the whole number. There are men who have it, too. But women would be particularly hit by this. These Medicaid cuts compound the problems caused by the Medicare cuts. Poor or nearly poor elderly, those are monthly incomes below $625 a month, may no longer be assured that Medicaid will provide cost sharing protections for their Medicare. As I say, the Medicare can pay for their Medicaid, their Medicare premiums, copayments and deductibles. The copays and deductibles can rise and these people, where are they going to get the money to pay for that? From their children. 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. Further, under the Republican plan, there would be no more guarantee of coverage for nursing home care after an individual or family has spent all of its savings. There would be no more guarantee that spouses of nursing home residents would be able to retain enough monthly income to remain in the community. States would be allowed to place liens on the family home and family farms. In addition to all of that, States would be allowed to require adult children of nursing home residents to pay for their parents' nursing home care, which could be $40,000 per year. I mean, where are people going to get this money? [[Page H 9879]] If you have a mother or father with Alzheimer's disease, for example, requiring nursing home care and you are trying to put your children through college, you have good reason to oppose the Republican plan. What the Republicans are doing in wrong, and working families deserve better. I just might add, apart from the money issue, an absolutely shocking part of the proposal is that they would remove the standards from nursing homes. This is the era of Dickens. We are returning to the past. We would eliminate Federal standards for nursing homes. It is appalling.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. It is called Medicare.

Ms. PELOSI. Sir, sir, I have a plan. It is called Medicare.

Ms. PELOSI. About how we should be civil to each other in a debate. I do not have to have a plan.

Ms. PELOSI. The gentleman is very clever. He makes a great long speech----

Ms. PELOSI. The plan is let us have universal access for all Americans to health care.

Ms. PELOSI. It does not have a name. It is a plan that says----

Ms. PELOSI. First of all, any savings that come, any cuts in Medicare-Medicaid, if they are deemed to be there, should be plowed back into Medicare.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Interior appropriations bill before us today. It is a bill rife with Federal giveaways--an interesting juxtaposition given the Republican interest in balancing the budget and reforming welfare and other programs for the poor. The real message is: It's OK to attack welfare for the poor, but do not question Federal welfare to those who can make billions off our Federal lands with a minuscule return to the Government. Why are we offering this giveaway to those who benefit from the largesse of our natural resources, and at the expense of our public lands and our Federal Treasury? The biggest giveaway in the bill is the fire sale of our Federal lands and their mineral deposits to a single beneficiary--the mining industry. And this is done in the name of mining reform. This isn't reform; this is a retreat. The House is already on record opposing what the Senate has included in H.R. 1977. We voted 271 to 153 in opposition to lifting the moratorium on mining claim patents--only 2 months ago. Now, we are retreating from this vote and our position against this giveaway. Mining companies stand to gain millions, or billions, in mining these underground resources with literally no return to the Federal Government. If this is Republican reform, then I can only imagine what is in store for the American people. Let's look at real reform and let's stand by the vote we took in July and let's not rip off the American people. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 1977 and vote to recommit the bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the conference report accompanying H.R. 2126, the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. My colleagues, this conference agreement appropriates a total of $243.3 billion for defense programs--$6.9 billion more than the administration's request [[Page H 9708]] and $1.7 billion more than was appropriated in fiscal year 1995. When combined with the monies appropriated under the defense-related provisions in the energy and water appropriations bill and those provided by the military construction appropriations bill, the total amount appropriated by the House of Representatives during fiscal year 1996 for Defense programs will be $264.6 billion. Mr. Speaker, I support a level of defense spending adequate to meet our legitimate national security needs. However, when we spend billions of dollars on elaborate new weapons systems, millions of Americans go without health care insurance, decent housing, and an opportunity to seek a higher education. During the last several months, we have seen funding levels slashed for environmental and health protections, student loans, school lunches, Medicare, and numerous other governmental programs which make up the social welfare safety net. Increasing the funding levels for the Department of Defense while inflicting painful cuts on every other item in the Federal budget is both inequitable and harmful to our overall strength as a Nation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this conference agreement. This conference agreement offers only a grand illusion of greater national security. Vote ``no'' on the conference report.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express grave concern over the Republican assault on working families through their harmful Medicare and Medicaid proposals. Consider the way in which the Republican Medicaid legislation, which passed the Committee on Commerce, leaves the elderly and their families unprotected. Madam Speaker, elderly people with incomes of less than $625 per month would lose their guarantee to assistance in paying their monthly Medicare premiums. Five million women in America depend on Medicaid to pay their Medicare premiums each month. In addition to this, there is the problem of nursing home care. In addition to lifting standards for nursing homes, there would be no more guarantee of coverage for nursing homes, there would be no more guarantee of coverage for nursing home care after an individual or family has spent all of its savings. There would be no more guarantee that spouses of nursing home residents would be able to retain enough monthly income to remain in the community. Madam Speaker, States would be allowed to place liens on the homes, family homes and family farms. States would be allowed to require the adult children of nursing home residents to pay for their parents' nursing home care, about $40,000 a year. And all of this in order to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this legislation. This legislation will actually legalize employer domination of worker organizations and represents a return to the bad old days of company unions. Under this bill, corporate chieftains would be entirely free to create, mold, and terminate employee organizations dealing with wages, benefits, and working conditions. This bill allows management to select employee representatives, determine the employee organization's governing structure, and establish the employee organization's mission. Where is the worker's voice? Furthermore, the bill gives employers the unfettered right to fashion employee organizations to the employer's own liking, and to disband them if and when the employer chooses. Mr. Speaker, when the National Labor Relations Act became law, it stood for the fundamental proposition that representatives of working men and women should be exclusively responsible to those they represent. If they are responsible to management, they cannot be an independent voice for workers. In a Congress where the majority party has attempted to eliminate OSHA and defund the NLRB, H.R. 743 represents yet another attack on our Nation's working people. I urge my colleagues to honor their working constituents and vote ``no'' on H.R. 743.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Norm Mineta. Norm is leaving this House after 21 years of exceptional service to the people of California's 15th Congressional District. He has been a leader in the Democratic Party, a leader in our State's delegation, and a leading voice on national transportation and infrastructure policy. First elected as a Member of the post-Watergate class of 1974, Norm has become one of the most prominent Asian-Americans in politics. He was a driving force behind the 1988 legislation to compensate Japanese- Americans interned by the United States Government during World War II. Norm worked to redress this ``act born of racism'' for more than a decade. As someone who himself had suffered the indignity of internment during the war, Norm's voice and passion on this issue carried added moral authority during the debate on this bill. In addition to this landmark legislation Norm has used his position as the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Aviation to make air travel safer, to protect the rights of transportation industry workers, and to benefit consumers. As chairman of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee during the 103d Congress, Norm continued these efforts and expanded them into the fields of maritime and surface transportation, water resources, public building construction, and the environment. When viewed separately, any of Norm's accomplishments would be considered to be the crowning achievement of one's congressional career. Yet, this is what has made Norm's tenure even more impressive. He has accomplished so many important things in so many different areas. This House will surely miss his drive, his intellect, and his dedication to realizing many difficult legislative goals. As a fellow Californian and member of the San Francisco Bay area delegation, I will miss Norm more than most. From my first days in [[Page H 9576]] Congress, we have worked together on many projects of importance to our region. He has been a leader, teacher, and a true friend. We will all miss him very much and wish him all the best in his new endeavor.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. I have tremendous respect for the leaders on this legislation, especially Representatives Ros-Lehtinen, Diaz-Balart, and Menendez. Their commitment to promoting democracy around the world is unquestioned. On the question of Cuba, however, I respectfully disagree with this legislation. I oppose H.R. 927 because I believe that the embargo on Cuba and the policy of which it is the centerpiece, have failed. The embargo has not contributed in any way to increased freedom and democratization in Cuba. Rather, it has only made life hard for the Cuban people. Fidel Castro is still in power and suffering no consequences from this embargo. The people of Cuba, however, suffer daily because of it. H.R. 927 tightens the embargo against Cuba--an embargo which has only resulted in inadequate access to medicine, to food, to healthcare, to education, and to development, for the Cuban people. It has not had an impact on Castro. It has not contributed to a more open society. It has not opened any doors to freedom. The world has changed dramatically in the past few years; unfortunately, our foreign policy has not. It is time for us to move beyond a failed policy of strangling the Cuban people in the hope of strangling Castro's regime. The Cuban people are suffering; we should implement a policy which reaches out to them and which fosters their support for democratization. The embargo and this legislation take us in the wrong direction. We should focus our policy on promoting democracy, not on punishing the Cuban people. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 927.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, when Medicare was created in 1965, seniors came from all over the United States to testify before Congress as to how to meet the health care financing needs of our Nation's elderly. As we reconsider the future of Medicare for 37 million Americans, our seniors, indeed all Americans, deserve the right to a fair and open period of public comment on an issue of concern to every family in America. Yet as the Republicans are about to embark on the most significant changes in the Medicare system, in Medicare's history, by proposing a $270 billion cut in Medicare, the Republicans are blanking out America's voices. How unfortunate that the Republicans intend to hold only 1 day of hearings on a proposal that the American people, and especially American seniors, have yet to see. This is fundamentally unfair. Mr. Speaker, a great Republican President hailed our democracy as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Our democracy is not just about free elections of representatives, it is about citizen participation in a free and open process in the formulation of public policy. Given the magnitude of the $270 billion cut, our citizens deserve better.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 42, introduced by Representative Engel, to promote a peaceful resolution of the occupation of Cyprus. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important bill and commend Representative Engle for his leadership on this issue. In 1974, in a show of brute strength, Turkey dispatched its forces to begin an illegal occupation of Cyprus. Today, 21 years later, that tragic occupation continues. Despite calls by the United States and the United Nations for the withdrawal foreign troops from Cyprus, Turkish troops remain in Cyprus. And despite a call by the United Nations for this dispute to be resolved based on a single sovereign state of Cyprus, Cyprus remains partitioned along Greek and Turkish ethnic lines. And despite the support by the international community for a peaceful resolution of this conflict by negotiations, Turkish intransigence has, in the past, undermined the good faith atmosphere necessary for a successful conclusion to such talks. The resolution before us today in straightforward. It places the United States Congress firmly on record in support of a peaceful resolution to the dispute between Turkey and Cyprus; it calls for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Cyprus; and, it insists that all parties to the dispute seek a solution based on the United Nations framework. House Concurrent Resolution 42 also encourages the demilitarization of Cyprus and urges the U.N. Security Council and the administration to consider alternative approaches to resolving this dispute. Mr. Speaker, the people of the divided nation of Cyprus have suffered for too long under an illegal occupation. A peaceful resolution to this conflict is long overdue. Withdrawal of foreign troops and the demilitarization of Cyprus are important steps toward restoring peace and harmony to this tragically divided land. I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 42 to put the U.S. Congress on record in support of such action.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in addition to complying with all of these laws, H.R. 1296, Presidio Trust legislation, support covers a broad spectrum from environmental groups, community organizations, and historic preservation groups to national business leaders. The ranking member, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], mentioned some of these, and I will just briefly mention them and place in the Record leaders and lists from these organizations and lists of other organizations, a letter from the National Historic Trust for Preservation, the Sierra Club, the Presidio Task Force, People for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco Tomorrow, and a letter signed by some of the Nation's leading CEO's and business leaders strongly supporting the legislation. The list goes on and on. As the gentleman from New Mexico mentioned, the Governor of California, the mayor of San Francisco, and also the League of Women Voters. A complete list is included for the Record. Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to say the picture of the Presidio in the GGNRA, of which this is a part, would not be complete without mentioning the work of Amy Meier, who has been engaged in efforts to preserve the GGNRA and Presidio for almost 25 years. There are hundreds of others in our community who were involved in the 5-year planning process for the Presidio. Community leaders from the San Francisco Bay area have also devoted their considerable talent and time to participate in the community and in congressional hearings on behalf of the Presidio Trust. They are stalwarts beyond comparison, and I greatly appreciate their work. In further closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my many colleagues who have made a special effort to learn more about the Presidio and the concept of the trust. Many of the San Francisco Bay area community deserve praise for their constant support and effort on behalf of the Presidio and for future generations. Mr. Speaker, I think that in passing this legislation we will not only set up a model for how we can go from post to park, a model for how we can fund national parks in the least exposure to the taxpayer, but also a model of bipartisan support in this Congress on how we can work together to achieve our goals, aside from once again urging our colleagues to support the Presidio legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Chairman Young, Chairman Hansen, and ranking member George Miller, in bring H.R. 1296 before the House today. Mr. Hansen and I have worked side by side over recent months to develop a bill that would reduce the Federal exposure at the Presidio while preserving the Presidio in the public domain. Chairman Hansen has been firm in his intent to reduce costs, steadfast in his pursuit of a compromise and determined in his bipartisan approach. I am grateful to him for his efforts on behalf of the Presidio. The ranking member, Mr. Miller, has been a defender of the Presidio for many years. As always, I am grateful for his leadership, advice, and support. Phil Burton would be proud of his part in this effort. I also appreciate the cooperation of Chairman Don Young. I also want to thank the members who believe in H.R. 1296 and cosponsored the bill: Mr. Gilman, Mr. Horn, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Bereuter, and Mr. Lantos. I appreciate their confidence in the Presidio Trust and their desire to see this bill passed by Congress. A Rich Military History Many of you are familiar with the Presidio, and many of you have visited or served in the military at the Presidio. It represents a harmony of history that spans a history as old as our democracy. Since 1776, the Presidio has served under the flags of three nations--Spain, Mexico, and the United States. This rich military history is blended with a cultural landscape which includes the Ohlone Indians who lived in the area 5,000 years before the Spanish arrived, the Spanish who colonized California, the American pioneers who settled the West, followers of the gold rush, and immigrants from Asia and soldiers returning from war whose first sight of home was the Presidio. The Presidio has played a role in every major American military conflict since the Mexican-American War. In 1898, thousands of troops camped in tent cities awaiting shipment to the Philippines. The returning wounded were treated in the Army's first permanent general hospital--now Letterman Hospital. With the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States entered World War II, and Presidio soldiers dug foxholes along nearby beaches. Almost 2 million soldiers embarked from the Presidio to fight in the Pacific. In the 1950's the Nike missile defense system was situated around the Golden Gate and the Presidio became the headquarters for the 6th Army. Troops from the Presidio have come to the aid of San Franciscans during two major earthquakes. The U.S. Army has been a good neighbor and we appreciate its important contribution to our community and service to our Nation. An Environmental Treasure Speaking objectively, the Presidio's natural environment and its scenic panoramas are unsurpassed in the world. At the confluence of the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay, the Presidio anchors the Golden Gate--a symbol to west coast immigrants much like the Statue of Liberty. The Presidio's natural areas are a refuge to native plants and wildlife. Its urban forest of almost one-half million trees planted by the Army over 100 years ago is surrounded by [[Page H 9102]] acres of sand dunes and coastal bluffs. It is the site of the world's only urban biosphere reserve designated by the United Nations. This natural backdrop provides recreational activities and opportunities for outdoor exploration to the Presidio's many visitors. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area, of which the Presidio is a part, is the most visited national park in the system--with over 20 million annual visitors. Visitation to the Presidio is expected to double within the next few years to reach approximately 9 million people. While this presents only a snapshot of the Presidio, I hope it gives you an image of the graceful contours--the historic, cultural, and natural elements--that embrace a special place. from post to park Through the initiative of former Representative Phillip Burton, Congress in 1972 authorized the creation of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area [GGNRA], a magnificent collection of park and historic sites surrounding San Francisco's Golden Gate--Public Law 92-589. Creation of the GGNRA, along with Gateway NRA in New York, was championed by President Nixon in his belief that parks should be brought to the people. There was strong bipartisan support in Congress for these urban national park initiatives when they were approved in 1972. The Presidio of San Francisco was included in the GGNRA authorization so that its lands would also be incorporated into the GGNRA when no longer required by the Department of Defense [DOD]. The language in Public Law 92-589 states: ``When all or any substantial portion of the remainder of the Presidio is determined by the Department of Defense to be in excess of its needs, such lands shall be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Secretary (of Interior) for the purposes of this Act.'' In 1988, the Presidio was included in the first round of base closures recommended by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission-- BRAC I--Public Law 100-526. Subsequent to this recommendation, BRAC II recommended that the 6th Army Headquarters be retained at the Presidio on an interim basis and under a lease agreement with the National Park Service. An agreement was negotiated and later withdrawn by a DOD decision to permanently relocate the 6th Army Headquarters elsewhere. In the 5 years following this decision, hundreds of people from the local community participated in the planning sessions to develop the general management plan. In 1993, I introduced H.R. 3433 to create a new management entity, a trust, to lease Presidio properties in cooperation with the National Park Service. The concept of a trust was included in the National Park Service Presidio General Management Plan [GMP] and, hearings were conducted by the House Subcommittee on National Parks on May 10, 1994, and H.R. 3433 was passed by the House on August 18, 1994, by a vote of 245 to 168. H.R. 3433 was approved unanimously--20 to 0--by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on September 21, 1994. The Senate failed to complete action on H.R. 3433 in the final days of the 103d Congress. On September 30, 1994, the Presidio officially became part of the GGNRA. where we are today H.R. 1296, to create a Presidio trust, was introduced on March 22, 1995, represents a bipartisan effort to merge economic reality with park stewardship in order to maximize revenue potential and minimize the cost to American taxpayers. I believe the legislation achieves these twin goals in its plan to, for the first time, actually reduce Federal costs for a national park. Concerns were raised last year about the cost of operating the Presidio under the National Park Service. The majority and minority in this Congress have worked to address many of these concerns. The version of H.R. 1296 before you today reflects many areas of compromise which are intended to protect taxpayers as well as to preserve the unique qualities of the Presidio that I have described. Again, I would like to emphasize the importance of providing a workable period of time in which the Presidio trust could demonstrate its success. The Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation [PADC] engaged in a similar rehabilitation project to restore the Avenue of the Presidents here in our nation's capital. It took over 20 years to accomplish the restoration, but it is done and it is a success. Chairman Hansen has been very supportive in his efforts to develop a framework for success. I hope these efforts will be continued as the Senate considers H.R. 1296 so that cost reduction remains a primary goal, but also so that we create a model equipped with a time frame sufficient to meet the challenge before us. supporters of h.r. 1296 The support for H.R. 1296 covers a broad spectrum--from environmental groups, community organizations, and historic preservation groups to national business leaders. A letter from the National Trust for Historic Preservation states: ``The Presidio is one of this country's most significant military sites, and its cultural, historic and natural resources are extraordinary . . . The Presidio needs the catalyst and well-managed oversight that only a management vehicle such as the Presidio Trust can provide.'' A letter from the Sierra Club Presidio Task Force states: ``H.R. 1296 will enable the Presidio to be a sustainable national park unit, managed for the benefit of ours and future generations. That is good park policy, good fiscal policy and good governmental policy.'' A letter from people for a GGNRA states: ``Our nation deserves to have the Golden Gate, the western entrance to the United States, honored with a park that preserves its splendor and its history. All the efforts of the private sector are needed to make that preservation a success.'' A letter from San Francisco Tomorrow states: ``In order to preserve the historic and scenic Presidio for all people for all time, San Francisco Tomorrow endorses the Presidio Trust to enable the Presidio National Park to pay its own way with minimal dependence on public funds.'' A letter cosigned by some of the Nation's leading CEO's and business leaders states: ``We strongly support legislation currently before your committee that would bring efficient, business-like management and cost-effective financing to the Presidio, a National Historic Landmark and National Park at California's scenic Golden Gate.'' The list goes on to include many more supporters--the League of Women Voters, the Governor of California, the mayor of San Francisco; a complete list of neighborhood organizations and other groups is included for the Record. This picture of the Presidio and the GGNRA, of which it is a part, would be incomplete without mentioning the work of Amy Meyer who has been engaged in efforts to preserve the GGNRA and Presidio for almost 25 years. There are hundreds of others who were involved in the 5-year planning process for the Presidio. Community leaders from San Francisco have also devoted their considerable talents and time to participate in the community and in Congressional hearings on behalf of the Presido Trust. They are stalwarts beyond comparison and I greatly appreciate their hard work. pro bono and philanthropic support The concept of a Presidio trust is based on the independent study of 19 management models which recommended this particular paradigm as workable at the Presidio. All of these studies emphasized the need for autonomy, flexibility, long-term leasing and private sector expertise. The Presidio trust concept was then embraced by the National Park Service in its Presidio general management plan. The Presidio has probably been the subject of more independent analyses than any base closure in the country. The list of private sector, pro bono consultants who have reviewed this project include Arthur Anderson & Co., McKinsey & Co., Keyser Marston Associates, Mancini-Mills, Morrison and Foerster and Curtis Feeny of the Stanford Management Co. They have consistently recommended the management structure outlined in H.R. 1296. In addition to the efforts provided by these consultants, considerable pro bono services--amounting to almost $4 million--have been provided to the Presidio. This effort was begun by the Presidio council, comprised of prominent professionals from the fields of business, finance, education, environment, architecture and planning, government and philanthropy and chaired by James Harvey, chairman of TransAmerica. These national leaders organized in 1991 to provide planning assistance to the park service and to solicit contributions to the Presidio. This philanthropic campaign is continuing under the leadership of the Golden Gate National Park Association [GGNPA] where over $15 million has been raised for the GGNRA since 1982 and another $10 million is expected to be raised for Presidio improvements to supplement the major philanthropic effort. A major requirement for philanthropic support is creation of a Presidio trust to manage the Presidio's properties. Confirmation of Marketability H.R. 1296 includes a deadline for total self sufficiency in 12 years. While I recognize the need for the trust to achieve self sufficiency over a given time period, I must add that the time frame outlined in H.R. 1296 is not supported by any of the independent studies that have been conducted on the Presidio's financial viability. Because of the need to reduce costs and to demonstrate the intent to reduce costs in the legislation, advice was sought from a known real estate entity which faced a challenge [[Page H 9103]] similar to the Presidio's. An independent analyst was engaged to review the park service figures and to determine the financial basis on which the legislation could stand. After reviewing the Presidio's properties, the analysis confirmed the Presidio's marketability and revenue potential, and that revenues of between $15 to $25 million could be generated within a 12- to 15-year period. In testimony before the Senate, Curtis Feeny, vice president for real estate with the Stanford Management Co. stated: ``The key to meeting the financial challenge posed by the Presidio is to capture the value of the property in the form of capital that can then be used to improve and maintain the park. I believe the value of the Presidio's real estate, if used in combination with cost reduction measures, will enable the Presidio's built environment to pay its own way over time.'' h.r. 1296 The Presidio trust would provide for the long-term lease of buildings to rent-paying tenants. There are over 800 structures at the Presidio, comprising more than 6 million square feet of space, most of which possess revenue potential to sustain the Presidio's real estate and to realize a savings to the Federal Government. Over half of these structures are historic. Revenues from leases would be retained and used to offset costs at the Presidio, reducing the need for federal appropriations. Capital improvements would be financed primarily from private sources and tenant financing. The trust would be governed by a board of seven members, including the Secretary of the Interior and members from the fields of property and financial management and resource conservation. Congress would have oversight of the trust with the requirement that an annual report and audit be conducted. At the end of 10 years,the General Accounting Office would conduct a comprehensive audit of the trust's financial activities. The Presidio trust would be subject to the provisions of the Government Corporation Control Act. The net effect of this financing structure would sustain the trust and reduce overall park operations and the need for federal appropriations. A number of protections are provided in H.R. 1296 which would restrict development of the Presidio and ensure public participation. Under the legislation, public access and open space are preserved. The Golden Gate National Recreation Advisory Commission would continue its role as a conduit for public comment and information. At least one annual public board meeting in San Francisco would be required. The trust would comply with the National Historic Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. There are no exemptions for its operations and nothing in this bill would affect the national historic landmark status of the Presidio. The trust must also act in accordance with the GGNRA's park purposes identified in the enabling legislation and the general objectives of the general management plan. I might add that it is unique in the legislative process to reference a general management plan at all and the inclusion of this language is considered extraordinary. Limits on new construction are included in the leasing and management program to be developed jointly by the trust and the park service. No board member is to have any financial interest in the Presidio and all board members must comply with the requirements of the Ethics in Government Act and Federal financial disclosure policy. In short, Mr. Speaker, the laws that apply to the GGNRA also apply to the trust. H.R. 1296 costs less than last year's bill because rehabilitation costs are transferred to tenants. Costs are further reduced through streamlined management, aggressive leasing, long-term leases, more demolition, broader tenancies and phased-in code compliance. Last year's cost estimates included both operations and capital improvements which resulted in a higher figure that many assumed was for operations only. Operations would be substantially reduced through creation of the Presidio trust and most capital costs would be borne by tenants. The Presidio trust would manage the revenue-producing properties with the goal of self-sufficiency in a national park context and the National Park Service would operate the open-space areas of the Presidio. While the National Park Service has been a good steward of the Presidio, I believe a stronger effort is warranted on their part to recognize the fiscal reality that exists and to take immediate steps to reduce costs. In light of the progress on H.R. 1296 in Congress, I hope plans are underway to downscale operations, administrative costs and staff so that the trust will have the benefit of maximizing the federal investment in the Presidio. Park service costs can be cut and they should be--starting now. A hearing on H.R. 1296 was conducted by the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands on May 16, 1995, and the legislation was marked up by the subcommittee on June 27, 1995. The full Resources Committee reported H.R. 1296 on July 12, 1995, for floor consideration. In addition to this committee review of the legislation, many members of the Appropriations and Resources Committees in the House and Senate have visited the Presidio to review its progress. Crafted in the context of our current fiscal and political landscape, H.R. 1296 is a reflection of cost consciousness, innovative thinking, bipartisan cooperation, and a strong appreciation for the natural and historic landscape with which we, as members of our Nation's highest representative body, have been temporarily entrusted. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I understand quite well the difficulty that each of us faces in the current fiscal environment. We must reduce spending where we can and in such a way as to protect our people and our national heritage. Our charge is to be both cost conscious and innovative. For nearly 150 years, the Federal Government has invested in the Presidio as an Army post; this investment should be protected. The best way to protect this asset is by creating a management and financial mechanism that will enable the Presidio to be used and to pay for itself. H.R. 1296 is a good government approach that recognizes fiscal realities and offers a less costly, private-sector approach to management of our important federal assets at the Presidio. It provides a means to utilize valuable real estate assets to underwrite a broader public purpose. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my many colleagues who have made a special effort to learn more about the Presidio and the concept of the trust. Members of the San Francisco community also deserve great praise for their constant support and efforts on behalf of preserving the Presidio for future generations. Our actions today are in keeping with the leadership of Phillip Burton to preserve this great national treasure. I further want to acknowledge the U.S. Army for creating the rich historic and environmental resource it is today. They planted the trees, preserved our history, trained our soldiers, and left a great legacy to our nation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this cost- saving measure. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1296. Support for Presidio Trust business leaders AirTouch Communications. Bank of America NT & SA. Basic American, Inc. Bay Area Council. Bay Area Economic Forum. The Gap, Inc. The Glen Ellen Company. Richard Goldman & Co. Hellman and Friedman. Hispanic Contractors Association. International Wine Marketing Association. Lane Publishing. Leach Capital. McKesson Corporation. Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Presidio Council. San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. San Francisco Hispanice Chamber of Commerce. Scotch Plywood Co. Swinerton & Walberg. Texas Pacific Group. Transamerica Corporation. community and civic leaders Governor Wilson, State of California. State Assembly, California Legislature. Mayor Jordan, City of San Francisco. Board of Supervisors, City of San Francisco. Bret Harte Terrace and Francisco Street Neighborhood Association. Golden Gate National Park Association. League of Women Voters of California. League of Women Voters of San Francisco. League of Women Voters of the United States. Los Californianos. Neighborhood Associations for Presidio Planning. North Beach Neighbors. People for a Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors. San Francisco Bay Area Interfaith Coalition. San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association. other organizations American Institute of Architects. American Society of Landscape Architects. Asian American Architects and Engineers. Earth Island Institute. Environmental Defense Fund Fort Mason Center. Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore Advisory Commission. Laborers' International Union of North America. League of Conservation Voters. National Park System Advisory Board. National Parks and Conservation Association. National Japanese American Historical Society. Natural Resources Defense Council. Sierra Club. [[Page H 9104]] Travel Industry Association of America. Trust for Public Land. The Wilderness Society. William Penn Mott, Jr Memorial Fund.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] for yielding this time to me, and for his cooperation in bringing this legislation to the floor, and his kind words about this bill. I am pleased to join my colleagues, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], and the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], in bringing H.R. 1296 before the House today. As chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] has worked tirelessly providing the leadership and the framework for the legislation before us today to reduce Federal exposure at the Presidio while preserving the Presidio in the public domain. Chairman Hansen has been firm in his intent to reduce costs, steadfast in his pursuit of a compromise, and determined in his bipartisan approach. I am grateful to him for his efforts on behalf of the Presidio. The ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], has been a defender of the Presidio for many years. As always, I am grateful for his leadership, advice, and support. Phil Burton, a former Member of this body, a leader here, would be proud of the gentleman from California's role in this effort. I also appreciate the cooperation of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young]. I want to thank the Members on the Republican side who believed in H.R. 1296 enough to cosponsor the legislation: the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]; and on our side my colleague, the gentleman from San Francisco, CA [Mr. Lantos]. I appreciate their confidence in the Presidio Trust legislation and their desire to see this bill passed by Congress today. Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, I also want to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of my staff person, my administrative assistant, Judy Lemons, who also worked on the Interior Committee, when it was called that, under Phillip Burton on the subcommittee. She was present at the birth of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. When we celebrate the Presidio from post to park, it will be in large measure because of the hard work of Judy Lemons, and her work would not have been successful without the cooperation, advice, and counsel of Steve Hodag on the minority side, and [[Page H 9101]] I want to publicly thank Steve. We have not always agreed on the approach to the Presidio, but, under the leadership of gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] and the framework for compromise that he established, I think we produced a great product that will reach our goals of reducing cost to the taxpayers while preserving this national treasure. Before again I go any further, Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge with great gratitude the role that the U.S. Army has played in the Presidio. They have created the rich historic and environmental resource that it it today. They planted the trees, they preserved the history, they trained our soldiers, and they have left a great legacy to our Nation, and so it is in that spirit that we move this legislation to take the Presidio from post to park in a way that preserves the heritage that they invested in for so long. Support for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, of which the Presidio will be a part, has, as I mentioned, we have bipartisan supporters for this legislation, but bipartisan support for urban parks, the GGNRA, along with Gateway NRA in New York was championed by President Nixon, his belief that, quote, parks should be brought to the people, end of quote. There was strong bipartisan support in Congress for these urban national park initiatives when they were approved in 1972. At that time former Representative Phillip Burton authorized the legislation, authorized the creation of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. I will place my full statement in the Record, Mr. Speaker, but I just did want to say briefly that H.R. 1296 creates a Presidio Trust to implement the conversion from post to park. This bill was introduced on March 22, 1995. It represents a bipartisan, and I keep saying that word, effort to merge economic realities, as the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] acknowledged, with park stewardship in order to maximize revenue potential and minimize the cost to American taxpayers. I believe the legislation achieves these twin goals in its plan for the first time actually to reduce Federal cost for our national park. Concerns were raised last year, as the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] mentioned, about the cost of operating the Presidio under the National Park Service. The majority and minority in this Congress have worked to address many of these concerns. That is why I am so proud that we have the support of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] in this legislation. The version of H.R. 1296 before us today actually is the Hansen substitute, reflects many areas of compromise which were intended to protect taxpayers as well as to preserve the unique qualities of the Presidio, as I have described. Mr. Speaker, it calls for self-sufficiency in a time certain. Mr. Speaker, in the interests of time, as I say, I am going to place more of my statement in the Record, but I would like to state for the Record publicly that the Presidio Trust would comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Landmark Act, the GGNRA general management plan.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in support of the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act, and in doing so commend the gentleman from Florida, Chairman Bilirakis, and the gentleman from California, the ranking member, Mr. Waxman, for their leadership in bringing this bill today to the Floor in a bipartisan fashion. Originally enacted in 1990, with strong bipartisan support then, this program provides assistance for health care with people with AIDS. Congress should take great pride in its actions in regard to the Ryan White CARE Act, both in the past 5 years and in the legislative activity that is happening today. The Ryan White program provides vital grants to metropolitan areas with high numbers of AIDS cases for outpatient health care and social services. In the coming year, 49 cities will receive direct emergency assistance through a formula grant, and will be eligible to compete for supplemental funds to assist with meeting the health care needs of people with AIDS. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman Bilirakis mentioned in his opening remarks, the Ryan White program also provides comprehensive care grants to states for the operation of HIV service delivery consortia in localities most heavily affected, for the provision of home and [[Page H 9059]] community-based care, for the continuation of insurance coverage for infected persons, and for purchase of therapeutic drugs. In addition, the Ryan White CARE Act provides grants to community, migrant and homeless health centers, family granting grantees, hemophilia centers and other nonprofit entities that provide comprehensive primary care services to people with AIDS or population at increased risk for HIV inspection. Mr. Speaker, separate grants are also made to foster collaboration between clinical research institutions and primary community-based medical and social service providers for the target population of HIV infected children, pregnant women, and their families. Mr. Speaker, since 1981, my community of San Francisco has reported 22,000 cases of AIDS. Imagine if this happened in your district, my colleagues; 14,600 deaths. You can see how grateful we are to the leaders of the committee for this as well as the fact that this is a national tragedy. We do not want our colleagues to experience the tragedy we have had in our community. I commend our colleagues for their leadership in bringing this to the floor and laying the foundation for a compromise on other issues.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support the Maloney amendment. The recoupment fee issue is corporate welfare, it is back door military assistance. It contributes to arms proliferation. It is not about competition, and it will be much more costly than its proponents suggests. Let us not have this House of Representatives be the handmaiden of the military industrial complex. Let us have a strong national defense. Let us [[Page H 8930]] try to end the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Sure, here we are talking international, but we sell far too many of those and we have a moral responsibility to hold that in check.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I was referencing the letter from the deputy inspector general of the Department of Defense when I talked about the use of the waiver.

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment being offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] which strikes a section of the bill before us repealing the recoupment fees provision of the Arms Control Export Act. I would also like to commend our colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], for his leadership, his ongoing leadership, on this important issue. As we know, recoupment fees are intended to reimburse the U.S. taxpayer for some of the $35 billion spent annually on research and development costs for major weapons systems. These fees are then built into the cost of these weapons when they are sold to foreign countries. Mr. Chairman, foreign governments have paid nearly $1 billion in recoupment fees for the last 5 years. According to the Congressional Research Service, collections over the next 5 years will also amount to approximately $1 billion. Failure to pass this amendment will not only shortchange the U.S. taxpayer, but it will guarantee the highly successful defense industry yet another corporate subsidy. Mr. Chairman, corporate recoupment fees also act as an important check on weapons proliferation. Without such fees we will in effect further subsidize foreign military sales and regional arms races. Our foreign military sales programs allows the United States control over who may take advantage of subsidized purchases of weapons systems. By striking recoupment fees, we are relinquishing this control. Every potential purchaser would be able to take advantage of this taxpayer- funded largesse. A vote for this amendment is a vote for greater accountability and control over these weapons systems. It is also a vote for greater financial accountability and a vote against corporate welfare. Mr. Chairman, I would like to, as I continue my remarks, comment on some of what I have heard from recent speakers, all of whom, let us all stipulate, we respect, and we are all distinguished representatives of our constituents. Having said that, I would like to take issue with some of the statements that have been made. One is that this recoupment fee, eliminating it will make us more competitive. In fact, as it has been stated, does not the recoupment requirement make the U.S. military equipment less competitive in international markets, depriving our contractors of their foreign sales needed? No, no, no, for several reasons. U.S. military equipment simply dominates the world market. It is just too good, dollar for dollar. Sales data confirms this. Each year sales of United States military equipment was more than the combined sales of all other countries combined, including France, Great Britain, Russia, China, the most aggressive arms exporters, referencing all of those countries combined. During the fiscal year 1991 to 1994 period, sales of U.S. equipment would increase 62 percent over the previous 4-year period, while total world purchases have declined 42 percent. There is a case-by-case waiver authority. It is generally granted, so when others, in addition to the competitive argument, say there cannot be a waiver, in the law itself there is a case-by-case waiver. It is generally granted if the contractor can demonstrate to DOD that recoupment is the difference between making a foreign sale or no foreign sale. The issue of jobs has come up. When are we going to stop having our economy be based on a military and defense economy only? Why are we not talking about developing other kinds of exports? As far as the industrial base is concerned, we spend a quarter of a trillion dollars a year on defense. A great deal of that is invested into our industrial base. We do not need to have further underwriting and corporate welfare there. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reference a letter from the deputy inspector general, who has confirmed some of what I have said. He said, ``Since the U.S. sales of military hardware exceeds all other countries combined, there is in my mind a great deal of doubt about the need to eliminate the recovery requirement when it can be done through waivers of a case-by-case basis.'' I say, referencing further his testimony before the Congress, he said ``We disagree with the change,'' and this is the inspector general, the deputy inspector general of the Department of Defense, he said ``We disagree with the change. The current law and regulations allow the charge to be waived if the charge is an impediment to the sale. Request for waivers are invariably granted.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the DeLauro substitute to the Dornan amendment. I oppose the Dornan amendment, which prohibits any funds from being used to perform abortions in military medical facilities except in the case of life endangerment of the mother. American women are guaranteed the constitutional right to obtain safe and legal abortions. The restrictive language in the Dornan amendment is obvious in its intent to deny that right to women who selflessly serve this country overseas. This is unjust and unreasonable. The health and safety of women is clearly threatened by the Dornan amendment. Denying women the opportunity to obtain a safe abortion from qualified doctors in a military hospital does not mean they will decide against abortion. Instead, we will see them seeking abortions in an unfamiliar, foreign environment where the opportunity to be treated by a skilled medical professional is not available. This amendment, as so many others we have seen in the course of this Congress, sacrifices the health, safety, and constitutional rights of women to further a pro-life agenda. I urge my colleagues to recognize the rights of American servicepeople and their families. Oppose the Dornan amendment and support the DeLauro substitute and women's right to choose.

Ms. PELOSI

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