Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for putting that on the record publicly because I think that should be a very important part of our policy as we review these sanctions rather than always seeking waivers and to make the sanctions more credible as a threat by making them more possible to be used. In the interests of time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my full statement for the Record, but I would like to engage the chairman of the full committee for a moment in colloquy. My concerns were about time. I see the gentleman has addressed the first time issue of prompt and timely fashion. My other concern, Mr. Chairman, is that an administration could feasibly stretch out this process for 3 years, 120 days at a time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I was so pleased that in the chairman's statement he said, ``In these cases, it is expected that the utmost will be done to resolve the sources and methods or law enforcement problems as soon as possible.'' So that an administration could not just use 120 days for whatever reason, economic purposes or other reasons, in a series of these 120 days to delay addressing the real issue at hand. Is it the gentleman's understanding that they would have to resolve the sources and methods problem as quickly as possible, as indicated in the statement?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I rise to express my support for Chairman Combest's amendment and my appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member and the committee staff for their work to address concerns about the bill's provisions allowing the President to delay the imposition of sanctions against other countries if the sanctions compromise, one, an intelligence source or method or, two, an ongoing criminal investigation. I would also, of course, like to acknowledge and commend our colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], for his contribution. He has been a leader in the fight against weapons proliferation. I want to commend him for his work over the years to make sanctions a more effective foreign policy tool. The gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] and his staff were active participants in the development of what, I think, is a very necessary amendment under the leadership of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest]. Mr. Chairman, Congress over the years has decided that the imposition of sanctions is appropriate response to certain activities which threaten U.S. foreign policy goals and global stability. We have laws on the books mandating imposition of sanctions for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, for the illegal transfer of some munitions, and for violation of missile technology controls. These sanctions have had an important deterrent and punitive effect and have increased the administration's leverage [[Page H 8826]] in discussing potential violations with the proliferators. If, indeed, the sanctions which are on the books are too punitive, too draconian to ever be used and, therefore, to be considered a credible threat, then, we should, as a Congress, revisit those sanctions. The gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] whom we are blessed to have a understanding position because of his knowledge and attention to these issues, stands ready, as he indicated in his remarks, to assist the administration or any administration in making appropriate changes.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. With the chairman's indulgence, I will be very brief. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. As you know, we have been through this debate before. When Mr. Glickman was Chair of the committee, he held hearings on this subject. I think that the testimony was very compelling in support of releasing the aggregate sum. I think it is important for the intelligence community, for our committee to be able to defend that figure in perspective and on balance as far as other Federal spending is concerned. While I am on the subject of openness, I also want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] earlier about the declassification of more information where it is appropriate. I [[Page H 8834]] think that would be a good investment of our dollars. With regard to this amendment, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] for his leadership on it and urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on the Frank amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. As the gentleman indicated in his statement, based on the testimony that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence received on this subject, the instances where sanctions would be deferred due to the source or method of criminal investigation problems would be rare?

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the chairman. I once again thank the chairman for his cooperation on presenting this manager's amendment and accommodating some of the concerns that the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] and I and other members of the committee had on it. Mr. Chairman, with that, since the chairman has confirmed so many of these issues, I can dispense with some of my statement and put it in the Record and once again urge my colleagues to support the Combest amendment and thank him for his leadership as well as thanking the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].

Ms. PELOSI. If I may further, I thank the chairman for that confirmation. But I also would like to once again reaffirm the intent of Congress that this waiver only is used when this would jeopardize sources and methods or jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation. There is no other standard or condition under which the administration could seek this blanket waiver?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frank amendment. Frankly, this morning, I still had not made up my mind about the amendment, because I have not been supportive of across-the-board cuts in a budget where people cannot really see what the expenditures are. My colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has clearly put forth to this body his view of the diminution of the threat as well as the values priorities debate, the context within which this debate on this authorization bill takes place today: our spending on intelligence. Certainly we can all stipulate in this body that we want our President, whoever the President is, to have the best possible intelligence in dealing with the international situation, in dealing with the increased threat of terrorism, and the list goes on. I associate myself with the remarks of our colleague, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], in support of the environmental task force and its important work. I have certain concerns about justifying the intelligence budget on the basis for economic reasons, because I do not believe that is what should justify our spending in the intelligence arena. I, too, associate myself with the remarks of our colleagues in support of the new Director of Central Intelligence, Mr. Deutch. I am pleased with the comments he has made about considering protecting human rights is determining our sources and methods as he takes over the leadership of the intelligence community. He is a very welcome new DCI. He has outstanding credentials. He has access to the President, and he the respect of many Members of Congress. We all wish him well. His success is important to us. I do have some concerns about his statement of yesterday on expanding covert operations, and look forward to hearing more about that. Having said all of that about the need for our President to have the vest possible intelligence, and also stating that I voted against the 10-percent across-the-board cut that was proposed in the appropriations bill the other day, because of the nature of the cut, I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] for his amendment today. I think the 3-percent cut is prudent and reasonable. As I said at the beginning of my remarks when I came into the room, I still had concerns about what I thought was an across-the-board cut, which did not take into consideration what our ranking member referred to and our chairman referred to as investments that will produce savings down the road, et cetera. I do not consider every proposal or element of this budget, of this authorization bill and the budget it contains, to be of the same priority. I was pleased to see, therefore, and I hope our colleagues will read the Frank amendment because, as the gentleman said at the close of his remarks, the amendment is very smart. It is a targeted smart amendment. It is a 3-percent cut. It makes an exception in that it does not apply to amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Central Intelligence Agency's retirement and disability fund, so that our obligations to our retirees will be met to them. It also gives transfer and programming authority, unlike most across- [[Page H 8831]] the-board cuts. It says, ``The President, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense, may apply the reductions required by subsection A by transferring amounts among the accounts or reprogramming amounts within an account as specified in section 102, so long as the aggregate reduction in the amount authorized be appropriated in this act equals 3 percent.'' So I support this amendment because it gives discretion to the President and the Secretary of DOD and the Director of Central Intelligence. It is very appropriate and appealing in terms of attracting the votes of our colleagues. I also think our colleagues should be aware of the fact that some of the money that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] would cut with this amendment has already been accommodated by the Committee on Appropriations. So I thank him for giving this body an opportunity to say to the intelligence community, ``We support you very strongly.'' Certainly, even though we cannot talk about amounts, this budget, even with the proposed cut of the gentleman from Massachusetts, will still be very, very substantial. We support and encourage and congratulate and commend the new DCI, Mr. Deutch, and hope that we can work together with him so he can be successful. If we are asking all Americans to tighten their belts, if we are asking all agencies of government to tighten their belts except the DOD, and the DOD appropriations bill has already accommodated some of this change, the DOD authorization being less than this authorization, then I think our colleagues in this body should say to the intelligence community, ``Join with us in being much more fiscally responsible in terms of dollars spent for the results that we must have to be a strong country based on the intelligence that we need for our President to lead us. Therefore, it is in that spirit I urge our colleagues to support this smart amendment, the Frank amendment. It is selective, it gives discretion to the President, it is an appropriate amount, it has already been accommodated by the Committee on Appropriations, and it is fair.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Dornan amendment and in strong support of the DeLauro substitute.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on this very important day. I rise to commend First Lady Hillary Clinton and our Ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador Madeleine Albright, for the strong statements that they made at the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women. Mr. Speaker, I rise as one who opposed Beijing as the venue for this important conference. I still think it was a most unfortunate choice. I rise as one who does not think that the United Nations has been strong enough in enforcing its own rules in terms of open participation for women in the conference. The United Nations did not do enough, whether we are talking about the accreditation of women from Taiwan and Tibet, or women who are concerned about women's and human rights in those countries. The United Nations did not do enough in regard to people that the Chinese just did not want into that conference because their countries recognize Taiwan; for example, the representatives from Niger. However, Mr. Speaker, what I really want to call to the attention of our colleagues are the strong statements made by the two leaders of our delegation. I strongly supported a high-powered delegation to the Beijing conference. I strenuously opposed the attendance by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. I did so because I thought it was not possible for her to attend the conference and make the strong statement that she made. Indeed, Hillary Rodham Clinton's statements, are the strongest statements made on human rights in China, in Asia, and in the world by this administration to date. I am very, very proud that the women of the Clinton administration are taking such a strong stand on this very important issue. The First Lady, in Beijing, very courageously stood up and broke the silence on sterilization and forced abortions in a country where that is the policy. Therefore, I say in the spirit of commendation to the First Lady and to Ambassador Albright that when they said they would not mince words when they went to China, that they would make the statements that would be necessary, they, indeed, did. I commend them for that. It is shameful, I think, that such an important conference on the rights of women and the economic future of women and families was held in a country with such an appalling human rights record. The strong statements of these members of the U.S. delegation made it clear that our Nation must not waiver from its commitment to personal and political freedom to equal rights and equal opportunity. The First Lady, in her remarks, was eloquent in her defense of the principles of women's rights and human rights, and she spent a great deal of her time talking about how advancing women's rights would strengthen families throughout the world. She emphasized how that strengthening families, building families, was what was important in strengthening societies throughout the world. The First Lady reaffirmed and supported the conference's main themes of economic and educational opportunity, health care, and protecting women against violence. Again, the First Lady and the Ambassador did not mince words of protest over repression, ignorance, abuse, and torture while the Chinese Government looked on. We have been told that the Chinese Government has not reported on the First Lady's speech, but we do know that the word will get out. As one who has opposed the First Lady's attendance, I want to commend her for her outstanding courage for breaking the silence on human rights in China, for breaking the silence on sterilization and forced abortion in China. There are many in this body who opposed the conference itself. I do not include myself among them, because I believe that the conference is a very important one. I think that some of those who opposed the conference and opposed the First Lady's attendance did so because of China's forced abortion policy. I look forward to working with those colleagues, as some of us have been working together in the Subcommittee on Foreign Relations of the Committee on Appropriations and in other committees of this House, to improve the lot of the women in the world by improving their health. The First Lady talked about women's health, she talked about violence against women, she talked about child survival, she talked about the spread of AIDS and how rapidly it is spreading among women in the developing countries. I look forward to continuing my work with our colleagues on this subject, and certainly working with the Clinton administration on those areas where more common ground has now been laid by the First Lady, and where more opportunity has been presented by this very important conference which called attention to these issues. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to place into the Record the two statements, by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, and the remarks before the World Health Organization, as well as the statement of our Ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador Madeleine Albright. She was a great participant in the conference, she represented our country very excellently, as she always does. I am very pleased to put Ambassador Albright's very strong statement on human rights, indeed, basic freedoms for all people, men and women, in the Record of this Congress. The material referred to follows: Ambassador Madeleine K. Albright, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations--Remarks to the Fourth World Conference on Women Beijing International Convention Center, Beijing, China, September 6, 1995 Honored guests, fellow delegates and observers, I am pleased and proud to address this historic conference on behalf of the United States of America. [[Page H 8551]] My government congratulates the thousands who have helped to organize the conference, to draft the Platform for Action, to inform the world about the subjects under discussion here and to encourage wide participation both by governments and NGO's. We have come here from all over the world to carry forward an age-old struggle: the pursuit of economic and social progress for all people, based on respect for the dignity and value of each. We are here to promote and protect human rights and to stress that women's rights are neither separable nor different from those of men. We are here to stop sexual crimes and other violence against women; to protect refugees, so many of whom are women; and to end the despicable notion--in this era of conflicts--that rape is just another tactic of war. We are here to empower women by enlarging their role in making economic and political decisions, an idea some find radical, but which my government believes is essential to economic and social progress around the world; because no country can develop if half its human resources are de-valued or repressed. We are here because we want to strengthen families, the heart and soul of any society. We believe that girls must be valued to the same degree as boys. We believe, with Pope John Paul II, in the ``equality of spouses with respect to family rights''. We think women and men should be able to make informed judgments as they plan their families. And we want to see forces that weaken families-- including pronography, domestic violence and the sexual exploitation of children--condemned and curtailed. Finally, we have come to this conference to assure for women equal access to education and health care, to help women protect against infection by HIV, to recognize the special needs and strengths of women with disabilities, and to attack the root causes of poverty, in which so many women, children and men are entrapped. We have come to Beijing to make further progress towards each of these goals. But real progress depend not on what we say here, but on what we do after we leave her. The Fourth World Conference for Women is not about conversations; it is about commitments. For decades, my nation has led efforts to promote equal rights for women. Women in their varied roles--as moshers, farm laborers, factory workers, organizers and community leaders helped build America. My government is based on principles that recognize the right of every person to equal rights and equal opportunity. Our laws forbid discrimination on the basis of sex and we work hard to enforce those laws. A rich network of nongovernmental organizations has blossomed within our borders, reaching out to women and girls from all segments of society, educating, counseling and advocating change. The United States is a leader, but leaders cannot stand still. Barriers to the equal participation of women persist in my country. The Clinton Administration is determined to bring those barriers down. Today, in the spirit of this conference, and in the knowledge that concrete steps to advance the status of women are required in every nation, I am pleased to announce the new commitments my government will undertake: First, President Clinton will establish a White House Council on Women to plan for the effective implementation within the United States of the Platform for Action. That Council will buiild on the commitments made today and will work every day with the nongovernmental community. Second, in accordance with recently-approved law, the Department of Justice will launch a six-year, $1.6 billion initiative to fight domestic violence and other crimes against women. Funds will be used for specialized police and prosecution units and to train police, prosecutors and judicial personnel. Third, our Department of Health and Human Services will lead a comprehensive assault on threats to the health and security of women--promoting healthy behavior, increasing awareness about AIDS, discouraging the use of cigarettes, and striving to win the battle against breast cancer. And, as Mrs. Clinton made clear yesterday, the United States remains firmly committed to the reproductive health rights gains made in Cairo. Fourth, our Department of Labor will conduct a grassroots campaign to improve conditions for women in the workplace. The campaign will work with employers to develop more equitable pay and promotion policies and to help employees balance the twin responsibilities of family and work. Fifth, our Department of the Treasury will take new steps to promote access to financial credit for women. Outstanding U.S. microenterprise lending organizations will be honored through special Presidential awards and we will improve coordination of federal efforts to encourage growth in this field of central importance to the economic empowerment of women. Sixth, the Agency for International Development will continue to lead in promoting and recognizing the vital role of women in development. Today, we announce important initiatives to increase women's participation in political processes and to promote the enforcement of women's legal rights. There is a seventh and final commitment my country is making today. We, the people and government of the United States of America, will continue to speak out openly and without hesitation on behalf of the human rights of all people. My country is proud that, nearly, a half century ago, Eleanor Roosevelt, a former First Lady of the United States, helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We are proud that, yesterday afternoon, in this very hall, our current First Lady--Hillary Rodham Clinton--re-stated with memorable eloquence our national commitment to that Declaration. The Universal Declaration reflects spiritual and moral tenets which are central to all cultures, encompassing both the wondrous diversity that defines us and the common humanity that binds us. It obliges each government to strive in law and practice to protest the rights of those under its jurisdiction. Whether a government fulfills that obligation is a matter not simply of domestic, but of universal, concern. For it is a funding principle of the United Nations that no government can hide its human rights record from the world. At the heart of the Universal Declaration is a fundamental distinction between coercion and choice. No woman--whether in Birmingham, Bombay, Beirut or Beijing--should be forcibly sterilized or forced to have an abortion. No mother should feel compelled to abandon her daughter because of a societal preference for males. No woman should be forced to undergo genital mutilation, or to become a prostitute, or to enter into marriage or to have sex. No one should be forced to remain silent for fear of religious or political persecution, arrest, abuse or torture. All of us should be able to exercise control over the course of our own lives and be able to help shape the destiny of our communities and countries. Let us be clear. Freedom to participate in the political process of our countries is the inalienable right of every woman and man. Deny that right, and you deny everything. It is unconscionable, therefore, that the right to free expression has been called into question right here, at a conference conducted under the auspices of the UN and whose very purpose is the free and open discussion of women's rights. And it is a challenge to us all that so many countries in so many parts of the world--north, south, west and east--fall far short of the noble objectives outlined in the Platform for Action. Every nation, including my own, must do better and do more--to make equal rights a fundamental principle of law; to enforce those rights and to remove barriers to the exercise of those rights. That is why President Clinton has made favorable action on the Convention to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women a top priority. The United States should be a party to that Convention. And it is why we will continue to seek a dialogue with governments--here and elsewhere--that deny to their citizens the rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration. In preparing for this conference. I came across an old Chinese poem that is worth recalling, especially today, as we observe the Day of the Girl-Child. In the poem, a father says to his daughter: We keep a dog to watch the house, A pig is useful, too, We keep a cat to catch a mouse, But what can we do with a girl like you? Fellow delegates, let us make sure that question never needs to be asked again--in China or anywhere else around the world. Let us strive for the day when every young girl, in every village and metropolis, can look ahead with confidence that their lives will be valued, their individually recognized, their rights protected and their futures determined by their own abilities and character. Let us reject outright the forces of repression and ignorance that have held us back; and act with the strength and optimism unity can provide. Let us honor the legacy of the heroines, famous and unknown who struggled in years past to build the platform upon which we now stand. And let us heed the instruction of our own lives. Look around this hall, and you will see women who have reached positions of owner and authority. Go to Huairou, and you will see an explosion of energy and intelligence devoted to every phase of struggle. Enter any community in any country, and you will find women insisting--often at great risk--on their right to an equal voice and equal access to the levers of power. This past week, on video at the NGO Forum, Aung San Suu Kyl, said that ``it is time to apply in the arena of the world the wisdom and experience'' women have gained. Let us all agree; it is time. It is time to turn bold talk into concrete action. It is time to unleash the full capacity for production, accomplishment and the enrichment of life that is inherent to us--the women of the world. Thank you very much.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question in order to add the gift and lobbying reform provisions passed by the other body to the conference report now before the House. Unless we act now, the House will have no opportunity this year to vote on lobbying and gift reform. Throughout the 104th Congress, the House Republican leadership has refused to schedule consideration of lobbying and gift reform legislation. In fact, they have made it clear that such measures will not be considered by the House this year. From the first day of the 104th Congress, the Republican leadership has allowed corporate lobbyists unprecedented access to the legislative drafting process. This access has resulted in weakened environmental and health protections, crippled worker safety standards, and special tax benefits for the wealthiest Americans. Nowhere in the much-heralded Contract With America did the Republican leadership address gift and lobbying reform. Nowhere in the Rules of the House reform package did these provisions appear. My colleagues, the silence of the House Republican leadership on this issue has been deafening. Mr. Speaker, twice during the 103d Congress, the House approved similar lobbying reform and gift legislation by solid bipartisan majorities only to see these measures stalled by filibusters in the other body. Now that they have finally passed these reforms, we in the House must also act. The lobbying reform provisions would correct the enormous loopholes in current law that allow more than 70 percent of Washington's lobbyists to lobby congressional offices without registering. Under these provisions, unpaid grass-roots lobbying activities would be completely exempt from the new requirements, as would advocacy by churches and religious groups. My colleagues, the issue of lobbying and gift reform has been thoroughly debated by Congress. The time to act is now. I urge defeat of the previous question so that we may add these important provisions to H.R. 1854, the conference report on legislative branch appropriations for fiscal year 1996.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stupak- Barton amendment, which is a vote for local control over zoning in our communities.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to name the post office in Waterville, ME in honor of former Majority Leader George Mitchell. Senator Mitchell's legacy is an outstanding one, marked by his great intellect and strong principles. Future generations will benefit from his distinguished service to our country. It is fitting that the citizens of his hometown have a daily reminder of his greatness. He has always spoken with pride of Waterville, ME, and now the Congress recognizes that strong tie. By honoring George Mitchell, this Congress honors one of its greatest leaders.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Kolbe-Lowey- Morella amendment, which deletes the provision in the bill permitting States to decide whether to use Medicaid funds to pay for abortions in the case of rape or incest. This language in the bill is discriminatory and unfair. If the availability of abortion services under Medicaid is not uniform across State lines, we are clearly discriminating against poor victims of rape and incest who do not have the means to travel to obtain these services. This language blames the victims of violent, horrible, unthinkable crime. How dare we give the States the option to decide whether victims of rape and incest should be responsible for the consequences of crimes perpetrated against them. This language is not at all about States' rights, as some of our colleagues would have us believe. States have the choice whether or not to participate in the Medicaid program--they do not and should not have a right to pick and choose which procedures they will cover. The Kolbe-Lowey-Morella amendment would delete this language and continue current policy, which is fair and correct in mandating that Medicaid funds pay for abortions in the case of rape, incest, or life endangerment of the mother. This is not an issue of States rights, it is about individual rights, and it is an issue of fairness. I urge my colleagues to protect the rights of vulnerable victims and support the Kolbe-Lowey-Morella amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons to vote against this Labor-HHS bill, but this education title is just an abomination. It cuts $3.7 billion from last year's education budget, a 14-percent decrease, and it is $5.2 billion less than the Clinton administration requests for an investment in our children. The sad thing is to hear our colleagues come to this floor and say we have to cut the education of our children to balance the budget. I ask my colleagues, ``Don't you know by now you're never going to be able to balance the budget unless we invest in our children, unless we give them personal opportunity, unless we give them the earning power, the education to achieve the earning power to contribute to the competitiveness of our country?'' So balancing the budget is tied to investing in our children. Any family can tell us that. Their protestations about balancing the budget ring hollow in light of the fact that they are cutting education for children in order to give a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans. They tried trickle down once. It didn't work then, and it will not work now. Vote ``no'' on this bad bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this frightening language in the appropriations bill and in support of the Skaggs amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, responding to the previous speaker, it is interesting to hear our colleagues talk about needing a scientific basis for OSHA before proceeding with further ergonomic regulations. We do have that scientific basis with NIOSH, and these same colleagues want to cut $32.9 million of our safety and health research [NIOSH] which is the foundation for the OSHA work. Mr.Chairman, I also would like to point out to our colleagues who are railing against the ergonomics regulation that a letter received in our offices that came from the Office of Inspector General, the House of Representatives. The letter says that among the provisions we recommend the Chief Administrative Officer develop proposals for the approval of the Committee on House Oversight to phase out nonfunctioning furnishings with ergonomic modern furnishings over the next 9 years. Let us take the advice of the administration of this House and have ergonomics considerations for people outside as well as in the Congress. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In that time I want to urge our colleagues to support this amendment which supports American workers, and to give to the people in America concerned about ergonomics the same opportunity that the leadership of this House of Representatives wants to give to the workers in the Congress of the United States. I believe that the calling for a four-fifths majority for 10(j) injunction is really antidemocratic. I urge our colleagues to vote for fairness and against that proposal in the appropriations bill. Please vote for the Pelosi amendment to support American workers and to treat them with the same fairness in regard to ergonomics we wish to have in this Congress. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the committee.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer three amendments en bloc.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].

Ms. PELOSI. That is for all three, the en bloc?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member for yielding time to me, and also for his leadership on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill, with the greatest respect for our colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], but I oppose the bill and hope that all of our colleagues will oppose it, because it is fundamentally flawed and must be rewritten. Mr. Chairman, this is a sad day for the Congress, and, therefore, for the country. It has always been a great privilege to serve on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on Appropriations, a place where a bill is developed to provide the funds and directions for America's future. Others have referenced the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Natcher, and, I am sure they will, Mr. Conte, but as Chairman Natcher would always say, ``If you educate your children and take care of the health of your people, you will live in the strongest country in the world.'' Mr. Conte agreed. That definition of strength is one that we should keep before us as we establish budget priorities in this Congress. Mr. Chairman, our budget should be a statement of our national values, and our national values should measure our strength, not only in our military might, which is very important to our country, but also in the health, education, and well-being, as Mr. Natcher said, of our people. While there was often controversy over the Hyde amendment, issues like the Hyde amendment, in the past there was no question about the broad bipartisan support for the programs in this bill. For many years, our subcommittee operated on the basis of consensus, without even taking a vote. Both parties worked constructively to fashion a truly bipartisan statement of priorities for these programs. The bill was a unifying factor between our two parties in this Congress. All that has changed. This bill has become an ideological battleground. It has driven a wedge into this Congress, because it declares war on American workers, it erodes decades of progress for women, it declares war on education, it targets for punishment the most vulnerable people in America. Some argue that this bill is just part of the pain associated with balancing the Federal budget. If that is all that was going on here, then the bill would be at least understandable, but this debate is about priorities within the budget limitations, as I mentioned earlier. Mr. Chairman, while recognizing the need for us to have the strongest possible defense, it is hard to understand why we are moving more than $5 billion more into the defense and military construction projects, funds that were not even requested. The Republicans have decided to focus the drastic cuts on the Labor-HHS-Education and VA-HUD bills. Even if the defense-related programs were frozen rather than taking the same proportional hit as other bills, we would have about $4 billion more for this bill, enough to make it a much better bill. I remind our colleagues that this bill takes a hit of $10 billion. We go from $70 billion to $60 billion. On top of all of this, the Republican leadership is insisting on a tax break for the wealthiest Americans, putting even more pressure on the most defenseless in our population. We want to give more money to defense and take money from the defenseless. I think it is wrong. I think the bill started out bad, it was a very dark night, as our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] mentioned, in the dark of night when this bill came out of subcommittee. then it got even worse as it moved through 3 days of full committee markup. By adopting five amendments which were part of the issues alert of the Christian Coalition, the bill became worse. Those included attempting to gag public interest advocacy, limiting further a woman's right to choose, prohibiting human embryo research, interfering with the private sector's accreditation of graduate medical education, and eliminating, if Members can imagine this, Mr. Chairman, title X, family planning. In doing that, the majority has made a bad bill terrible. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this most unfortunate legislation.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me, and once again for being such an articulate spokesperson for America's workers and America's families. There are many reasons to be against this bill. Many of them have been enumerated in the debate thus far, and we will hear more later. But this part of the bill, title I, deals with the war on American workers that this legislation has declared. Indeed, regardless of comments to the contrary from the majority Republican side, this legislation cuts $10 billion, $10 billion in programs that relate to family planning in title 10, workers protections, health, education. The list goes on and on. This section, title I, goes to, as I said, the war on American workers. The Republican majority with this bill says to the American worker, essentially: Get lost. When it comes to your safety in the workplace, your pension protections, your employment standards and collective bargaining and job security, forget it. That is what the majority is saying. This takes place at a time when workers in America are menaced by corporate downsizing to increase profits, the bottom line for corporate America, globalization, putting many U.S. jobs offshore, and the technological advances which we all support. Those factors make it even harder to understand why the Republican majority would strike out at the American worker at this very difficult time in our economic history. We hear a great deal about competitiveness, how can we compete with our European and our Japanese competitors when they respect their workers? The American workers are the most productive workers in the world. Yet our reward to them is to say, in this bill, the law of the jungle will prevail. Laissez-faire reigns. We are not interested in your progress. This committee bill reverses decades of progress to protect American workers. Out of respect for those American workers, I offered an amendment to restore funding for seven critical worker protections. Unfortunately, this amendment is not in order under the rule. Therefore, I want to explain to Members the implication of these cuts on American workers. A vote for this bill, and I think every Member should be very conscious of this when they put their card in the machine, a vote for this bill is a vote for a 33 percent cut in safety and health enforcement in our country. Currently, 6,000 Americans are injured on the job each day, and these injuries cost America more than $112 billion a year. So it does not even make economic sense to make this foolish cut. These preventable injuries have a direct impact on American families. In addition to that, they have a cut of 25 percent in safety and health research. Are you ready for this, my colleagues? Even General Motors is opposing this cut. This research ultimately saves the Nation billions of dollars annually in medical costs. Of course, the health care costs borne by the industry directly impact on the price of product, making global competition an issue as well. That is why General Motors is opposing this cut. Why do we not? There are also cuts in mine safety. This means fewer mines will be inspected, exposing more miners to injury. There are other reductions proposed in pension protections. The reductions proposed in this bill place in jeopardy working families' pensions. These cutbacks will result in pension plan losses of at least $100 million, and the number of pension fraud cases pursued will decline by 20 percent. Employment standards enforcement is cut by 25 percent. These reductions will mean that $25 million in back wages owed to some 50,000 workers will not be recovered. Mr. Chairman, for the record, I am putting elaboration of all of this in, but in the interest of time I am just going to proceed to collective bargaining. The collective bargaining protections are cut by 30 percent. This is absolutely appalling. The National Labor Relations Board was created in 1935 to bring order to labor disputes. This bill cuts 30 percent of the funds for the NLRB and handcuffs the board's ability to enforce existing laws and safeguards on employees rights and employers protection. The NLRB guards against unfair labor practices both by employers and employees. This is a direct attack on the basic rights of both. The dislocated worker assistance program is cut by 34 percent. This means that 193,000 workers who lose their jobs in 1996, through no fault of their own, will not receive training. Rapid advancements in technology, defense downsizing, corporate restructuring, and intense global competition result in structural changes necessary for economical growth. This program works. The inspector general has reported that workers served by this program were reemployed, remained in the workforce, and regained their earning power. Continuing our investment in dislocated workers is essential. The cuts in these seven programs for worker protection, along with a long list of legislation provisions--limiting the authority of agencies to enforce child labor laws, laws which protect workers' right to organize, and regulations to protect occupational safety; and language blocking the President's Executive order regarding striker replacements--constitute a war on the American worker. Mr. Chairman, American workers are the engine of our economy. They must be treated with dignity and respect. They also deserve a safe workplace. Despite our budget challenges, we should not retreat on worker protection. Cuts that will result in increased workplace accidents and fatalities will cost our society. This is the wrong place to cut back. Shame. Mr. Chairman, we will go into this more as we try to bring up other amendments. All I am saying here today is that, if Members in this Chamber care about the American worker, they will vote against this bill.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I again thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member, for yielding this time to me and for his leadership on these workers' issues. I think it was perfectly appropriate that he closed his part of the debate on this in speaking about individuals and how this policy so cruelly affects them and speaking in their own words. I, too, want to bring to the attention of our colleagues and individual case of how people are affected by the cuts in this legislation. I want to tell the House about someone who traveled to Washington all the way from California to argue against this bill. Her name is Beverly Reagan, and she is a Republican. She votes Republican, but came here to fight against the passage of this bill. Beverly is a food service worker. She works for private contractors at a U.S. Navy base. Repeatedly these contractors have won bids to operate food service facilities and then failed to make the pension and health insurance benefits that were required under the terms of the contract. Beverly and her coworkers have had the experience of going to the doctor and finding that the health insurance that they thought was there to cover their expenses was not there at all. She is not alone. Tens of thousands of Americans find themselves in the same situation each year. And like Beverly, the only recourse they have is the Pension and Welfare Benefit Program in the Department of Labor. This bill cuts that program. I urge my colleagues to do what Beverly is asking and vote against this bill, protect the health benefits and pension plans of our constituents, and vote ``no'' on this legislation. This is only one of many cuts in the bill that deal harshly with the American worker. The cuts in these seven programs for worker protection, along with a long list of legislation provisions limiting the authority of agencies to enforce child labor laws, laws which protect workers' right to organize, and regulations to protect occupational safety, and language blocking the President's Executive order regarding striker replacements constitute a war on the American worker. When I was interrupted by the gavel earlier, I was talking about this dislocated worker assistance program which I want to call to our colleagues' attention once again, which is being cut in this legislation by 34 percent. This means that 193,000 workers who lose their jobs in 1996 through no fault of their own will not receive training. Rapid advancements in technology, defense downsizing, corporate restructuring, and intense global competition result in structural changes necessary for economical growth. This program works. The inspector general has reported that workers served by this program ``were reemployed, remained in the workforce and regained their earning power.'' Continuing our investment in dislocated workers is essential. Of all the cuts in this bill, it is so very difficult to understand why, with all of our talk of free trade, et cetera, we will not deliver on our promise to dislocated workers who are affected by that kind of change. Mr. Chairman, American workers are the engine of our economy. They must be treated with dignity and respect. They also deserve a safe workplace. Despite our budget challenges, we should not retreat on worker protections. Cuts that will result in increased workplace accidents and fatalities will cost our society. There is only one word to describe this, Mr. Chairman: Shame.