Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Enola Maxwell.

Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will yield on that point, it is very interesting to hear this debate, because as you say, it is very familiar. Increase defense spending, give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, and the benefits will trickle down. And here we are again, as Yogi Berra would say, it is deja vu all over again. What is interesting about it, and it is a real tribute to President Clinton, is this is the first year, the 1995 fiscal year budget we are in now, is the first time since the 1960's that we have a budget that has an operating surplus. President Clinton has saved $50 billion. In other words, the revenues coming in are $50 billion more than what is being spent by the Federal Government, except we have to pay for the trickle-down economics of the eighties, a $240 to $250 billion interest on the national debt. So we consequently have a $190 to $200 billion deficit this year. But President Clinton is the first President since the sixties to have a budget that takes in more money than it spends except for that interest. I think that is important to note, because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the Republican majority keep saying what is President Clinton doing. President Clinton is moving toward reducing the national deficit and the national debt.

Ms. PELOSI. Squeezing middle-aged and middle-income people who certainly want their children to be interested, and now they cannot get the deferred interest, so it makes their options less desirable, and at the same time, being worried about trying to help their parents meet their health care needs. The whole thing is anti-family. That is what is so tragic about it all, because the Medicare issue is not about seniors only, it is about the whole family.

Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will yield on that last point, because I think the arguments that our colleagues make about children and their futures, of course we are all interested in children, but it would ring a little truer if they were not putting forth a $300 billion tax break for the wealthiest Americans and the corporations. It is exactly the amount of money they have to cut out of Medicare to pay for that, and they had choices. As you know, there was a debate in their caucus about whether the tax break should go up to $95,000 a year or to $200,000 a year, the tax break, $500 tax break per child, and it went all the way up to $200,000 a year tax break at the same time giving a tax break and cutting education for our children who need a boost. But in addition to that, and the gentleman referred to this and I want to emphasize it again, the Wall Street Journal the other day said: Estimates vary on exactly how much the government gives up in revenue as a result of corporate tax breaks. But most budget experts say it exceeds $200 billion over 5 years. The House Budget Committee went as far as targeting a specific list of $25 billion in tax breaks over 7 years, but the plan collapsed last week after it was denounced by the chairman of the Ways and Means committee. So, again they had another opportunity to make a little cut, almost a 10- or 11-percent cut in those tax breaks, and they rejected it again, instead choosing to cut benefits rather than tax breaks.

Ms. PELOSI. I would like to make one point, because I know the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] has been a leader in fighting for real health care reform in this body. Congresswoman DeLauro said we do have to make some reforms in the Medicare system. That does not mean we lessen the benefits and increase the copayments on the beneficiaries. But we do have to make some change in the delivery and the financing of health [[Page H5186]] care reform. President Clinton had a proposal for real health care reform. We have to have that. That is the way we are going to stop the rising cost of health care entitlements and the impact on the national budget. We all want to be fiscally responsible, reduce the deficit, have Medicare and quality health care for all Americans. But we cannot do that the way the Republicans are proposing. And we want to keep our people healthy. And just in closing I want to point out one other cut they are making, billions of dollars in cuts in the National Institutes of Health, where we do the breast cancer research, all kinds of prostate cancer research, AIDS research, you name it, any illness that you can name that has gotten attention: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, the rest of it, so in every way that you would measure the health and well- being of a population, they have undermined and attacked in this. And I hope the American people will respond appropriately. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. PELOSI

Mr. PELOSI. In our State of California, it is even higher. That is hard to believe, but it is. So seniors living on fixed incomes, with this being a big part of their budget and the highest of any Americans, what they have to pay for health care, the very idea that someone can say we are not touching Social Security, it is just like saying I am not going to touch your food budget, I am just going to double your rent. Where do you end up at the end of the day? I think the point that you make about the impact on Social Security and the disposable income that seniors would have is a very important one for our seniors to know. Not only is this an attack on Medicare, but it is a back-door attack on Social Security.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget for yielding and for his leadership in representing the values of our great country on the Committee on the Budget. Mr. Chairman, why are we cutting Medicare benefits in order to give a tax break to corporations and to the wealthiest Americans? Three and a half million senior citizens on Medicare in California want to know. One of them is Enola Maxwell, my constituent. Enola Maxwell is 75 years old. She has worked for 20 years as the executive director of the Potrero Hill Neighborhood House, serving the needs of senior citizens, inner-city youth, and providing job training for adults. Enola wants to know, because recently she had a heart attack, and she said when you get older and this horrible thing happens to you, like a heart attack, you realize what a wonderful benefit Medicare is. Medicare paid for Enola's convalescent care. Enola asks, why do the Republicans want to break their promise to millions of seniors like her. Why indeed? They have to do that, they have to do that in order to make the $300 billion off of seniors in order to pay for their $300 billion tax break for the wealthiest Americans; 37 million senior citizens will lose $900 a year in order to provide a $20,000 tax break for Americans in the highest bracket. This simply is not fair. The winners in this deal are the corporations and the wealthiest Americans. The losers are the senior citizens. Vote no on the Republican budget.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, Sunday was Mother's Day. I rise to honor the memory of Elizabeth Glaser, a brave and loving mother who led national efforts to call attention to pediatric AIDS. Elizabeth went door to door in Congress to make the case for increased funding for pediatric AIDS research. Her moving speech at the Democratic Convention in New York inspired the Nation. Her relentless advocacy led to major increases in funding for pediatric AIDS research and congressional attention to pediatric AIDS prevention and patient care concerns. Thursday, May 11, Members of Congress, administration officials, and pediatric AIDS advocates appeared before the Commerce Committee to present views on preventing HIV transmission from mothers to newborns. The hearing highlighted all that Elizabeth accomplished through her work. The focus of the hearing was to find ways to implement remarkable research findings from the National Institutes of Health [NIH] where researchers developed medical treatments to reduce from 25 to 8 percent the number of newborns infected by their mothers during pregnancy and delivery. Elizabeth Glaser's advocacy had led to this research that will give thousands of infants the opportunity for a healthy life. We lost Elizabeth to AIDS last December. But her legacy is with us and is cause for honoring her memory on Mother's Day.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support for H.R. 1361, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996. Since 1915, the Coast Guard has played a critical role in the protection of life and property on the high seas and in the enforcement of all applicable federal laws on, over, and under our oceans. The Coast Guard has maintained coastal navigation aids, engaged in icebreaking activities and has protected our fragile environment. The Coast Guard is also responsible for the safety and security of vessels, ports, waterways, and their related facilities. Mr. Speaker, in addition to these maritime safety responsibilities, the Coast Guard also performs drug interdiction for the entire U.S. coastline, responds to all coastal oil spills, protects U.S. fisheries, and responds to human migration crises. H.R. 1361, which reflects a slight increase over this year's funding level, recognizes the enormous responsibilities performed by the men and women of the Coast Guard every day and it deserves our bipartisan support. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1500.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], as amended by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge]. This substitute amendment is a reasonable alternative to H.R. 961, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. The substitute lessens the devastating impact of H.R. 961 by including the recommendation of the National Governors Association for protecting wetlands. In addition, it incorporates a proposal for addressing coastal nonpoint pollution developed by the Coastal States Organization. The substitute, unlike H.R. 961, will not roll back toxicity standards that are working, and it will not provide a laundry list of exemptions for various industries to release new pollutants at will. Mr. Chairman, of special concern to my state of California and to all coastal States, and I might add my native State of Maryland, home of the great Chesapeake Bay, is a provision which repeals the only existing program for reducing agricultural and urban runoff. This type of runoff is an especially significant contributor to coastal pollution and results in the closing of beaches, declining coastal fisheries, threats to drinking water and the shutting down of the shellfish beds. We are all concerned about the enforcement of regulations over the wetlands. We have heard this over and over, and I think it deserves attention. But, Mr. Chairman, this legislation goes too far because it affects millions of acres of wetlands by allowing these natural areas to be developed and polluted. This would jeopardize over 75 percent of our fish and shellfish, which depend on marshes and other wetland environment. Wetlands are an integral component of both the environmental and economic health of our Nation. They provide important recreational benefits, natural flood control, reduce shoreline erosion and water purification through filtration of sediments and toxic pollutants from runoff. The provisions of H.R. 961 would cause irreparable damage to these sensitive lands. Mr. Chairman, the Clean Water Act is a tremendously complex piece of legislation dealing with national issues of critical importance. Unlike previous reauthorizations, however, H.R. 961 fails to make progress toward a cleaner environment. Mr. Chairman, the substitute offered by our colleagues is reasonable and sensible, when compared to H.R. 961. Virtually every provision of H.R. 961 is harmful to both people and the environment and would degrade rivers, streams, estuaries, wetlands, and coastal zones throughout the country, including the sources of drinking water for two-thirds of all Americans. Our Nation will never have a clean bill of health in any respect without clean water. I urge my colleagues to support the Saxton- Boehlert-Roemer substitute and to vote ``no'' on H.R. 961.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the University of San Francisco's Fromm Institute for Lifelong Learning, which celebrates its 20th anniversary on May 6, 1995. Alfred and Hanna Fromm are a living example of the American dream. As a married couple fleeing Hitler's Germany in the 1930's, they came to this country as refugees, and reaped the rewards of their hard work. Alfred was instrumental in reviving a dormant wine industry in California following Prohibition, using his talents to transform Christian Brothers, and then Paul Masson, into world-renowned labels of wine. His distributorship, Fromm & Sichel, became the largest distributor of California wines in the world. Alfred and Hanna have never forgotten the needs of their community. They have involved themselves deeply and generously in the civic and cultural life of San Francisco. They are cofounders of the Jewish Community Museum, and have served on the boards and supported organizations as diverse as the opera and Amnesty International. Their dedicated service to the San Francisco community and the Nation is a model and inspiration for all. In 1976, Hanna and Alfred recognized the need to expand and enhance the then severely limited educational opportunities and options available to senior San Franciscans living in retirement. Together, they set to work to provide a suitable setting where retired members of the community could pursue serious academic study among their peers and under the tutelage of their peers, but with the resources of a modern great urban university at their disposal. Thus was born the Fromm Institute for Lifelong Learning. Thousands of seniors have enrolled in this ``university within a university,'' presenting 8-week, noncredit, academic courses three times a year. Courses span the disciplines of psychology, literature, philosophy, science, theology, history, art, music, politics, and creative writing. Mr. Speaker, Hanna and Alfred have received recognition and commendations from Presidents, Governors, and mayors. Yet, their deepest satisfaction comes from seeing their peers who enter the halls of the Fromm Institute for Lifelong Learning and continue the journey of learning through their retirement years. That may be the best and greatest legacy of these two extraordinary people, and on behalf of the Congress, let us join the entire San Francisco community in thanking Alfred and Hanna Fromm on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Fromm Institute for Lifelong Learning.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Dr. Edgar Wayburn and to congratulate him on receiving the 1995 Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism. In his illustrious career, Ed has achieved distinction as a physician, environmentalist, and humanitarian. He is a worthy recipient of this award and I join his friends and colleagues in congratulating him. Many people have described Ed as the present day incarnation of John Muir. This is not only an accurate description, but one which complements the legacy of Mr. Muir himself. During his 50 years of service with the Sierra Club, Ed was responsible for over 103 million acres of public lands in the United States being designated as protected areas. These lands included portions of the Redwood National Park, the Golden Gate/Point Reyes region, and vast tracts in Alaska. Their protected status is a tribute to Ed's tireless energy and his lifetime commitment to the preservation of our Nation's wild lands. On behalf of the millions of Americans who seek respite in these natural sanctuaries, I salute you Ed and wish you and Peggy the best in the years to come.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Yes. It is a back door way of cutting Social Security.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted to focus on one point you had made about the Republicans saying they would not touch Social Security, but what these Medicare cuts will do. It would reduce half of the Social Security cost-of- living adjustment for millions and millions of our senior citizens. In fact, 2 million Medicare beneficiaries will have all or most of their cost of living adjustments consumed by the Republican beneficiary cost increases.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, our seniors depend on Medicare, and its solvency is a national priority. That is why President Clinton addressed this issue as soon as he took office in 1993. The omnibus budget bill of 1993 not only reduced the deficit; it also strengthened the Medicare Trust Fund and made it solvent for 3 additional years. President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress did this without one Republican vote. The administration also recognized that Medicare could only be solvent if we have comprehensive health care reform. These initiatives passed out of committee without one Republican vote. Now, Mr. Speaker, Republicans are poised to take $300 billion over 7 years from the Medicare Program. The Republicans plan to use the Medicare Program as a bank for their tax cuts. We must not let this happen. These Medicare cuts will cost seniors $3,000 over the next 7 years, using up most of their Social Security cost-of-living adjustment. Chief of Staff Panetta said it well when he said, ``No amount of accounting gimmicks, separate accounts, dual budget reconciliations can hide the reality that you,'' the Republicans, ``essentially are calling for the largest Medicare cut in history to pay for tax cuts for the well-off.'' We must fight these cuts.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], for his leadership in offering this amendment, this substitute, to the resolution of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos] for President Lee. I also commend the chairman of the full committee for his leadership, ongoing for many years, on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, the debate that we have had for many years in this House on the issue of China is a long and complicated one. Today many parties to both sides of that debate have come together behind this important resolution. It is important because it is about who we are and who will dictate to us who has the hospitality of the United States of America. Will that be determined by the American people, this Congress, this administration, or will it be determined in Beijing? I think it should be determined here. In preparation for our colleagues coming back from the spring work recess, I sent a group of clips yesterday to each Member of the House called China Clips, our regular series, which goes into the three areas of concern that we have shared in this House on China: Violations of trade, violations of human rights, and the proliferation of weapons. I call to my colleagues' attention two things: One is why is China always the exception to the administration's rules? Why is it as my colleagues have said that others who have led opposition in other countries are invited here and yet the President, the democratically elected President of Taiwan, educated in the United States, born in Taiwan, not even in China, mainland China, is not allowed to come? We have heard people in the administration say, ``We don't need to do anything to improve human rights in China because economic reform is going to take care of that. It's going to lead to political reform.'' It can. It may. There is no guarantee. But In Taiwan, it happened. And under the leadership of President Lee, it continues to happen, where political reform grows every day because of his policies. How can we purport to support a principle of economic reform leading to political reform and in the very place that the leadership has allowed that to happen in Taiwan say to the President, ``But you're not good enough to come into the United States and avail yourself of their hospitality?'' Another issue, because my colleague the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos] brought it out, is the issue of Iran. The President was commended for his policy in Iran and I support that. But in his comments, the President referenced Russia and what they were doing to sell to Iran, not referencing, and I call to my colleagues' attention something in the clips, ``China in Rebuff to United States Defends its Nuclear Dealings with Iran.'' If this is a problem, then let us deal with it, Russia, China, and the rest. But let us not let China violate human rights, trade and proliferation and then dictate to us whether the President of Taiwan can come into this country. I support my colleagues' resolutions.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join some of my colleagues this morning who have extended the sympathies of their constituents to our colleagues from Oklahoma, to their constituents and, most importantly, to the families of those who lost their lives in the Federal building there. We have a natural political governmental connection to those folks because they carry out the work of public policy whether it is helping a child get a Social Security number at birth or whether it is the senior citizen applying for Social Security benefits at the end of life, housing in between and the rest, and they indeed were great public servants and will be sorely missed. At this time of national tragedy, Mr. Speaker, of course we must focus on the personal heartbreak, and I hope it is some source of consolation to the people of Oklahoma City that the world grieves with them, that more than anything in life we wish that would never have happened, that the innocent victims, that would be all people involved there, would not have had to pay the price that they are paying. For as long as I can remember, Mr. Speaker, the word ``Oklahoma'' was fraught with a spirit of the greatest optimism whether it was on the musical stage or whether it was on the football field, and that spirit once again is very conspicuous in the activities in Oklahoma City as people unselfishly and tirelessly fight the battle of time to try to save lives and try to save dignity. I hope again, as this source of some consolation to those who lost their family members in Oklahoma City, that this should engender a spirit of national reconciliation. Many colleagues have talked about the tone of remarks and what was intended and what was not. Let us remove all doubt that in our public debate and in our rhetoric that we will take the high road, that we will not use words that hurt or can endanger, and that we know a better way, and that when we proceed to have our differences discussed, we will have absolutely no doubt in our mind that none of our words could have contributed to an act of violence. Once again I want to extend the condolences of the people of San Francisco. We have suffered our share of natural disasters. It is impossible to fathom a criminal act that would take life, and we send our deepest, deepest sympathy.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join in the observation of the 80th anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian genocide during the Ottoman Empire. I commend my colleagues Representatives Porter and Pallone for calling this special order to draw Congress' attention to the tragic slaughter of the Armenian people. In addition to participating in this special order, I am proud to have joined Representatives Bonior and Blute in cosponsoring House Concurrent Resolution 47, which honors the memory of the 1.5 million Armenians who perished earlier this century. I have also joined a number of my congressional colleagues in writing President Clinton urging that he, too, issue a strong statement of remembrance and recognition of the Armenian genocide as a crime against humanity. On April 24, 1915, despots of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic campaign of terror, brutality and murder against the Armenian people. This campaign was the first genocide of the 20th century. By the end of the campaign of terror in 1923, 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children had been massacred and more than 500,000 had been deported from their homeland of 3,000 years. These actions were a clear case of genocide. The genocide was horrific, it is well-documented and it must not be forgotten. Today, the Armenian-American descendants of the Armenian exiles make a vibrant contribution to the life and energy of the San Francisco Bay area. I join with them in observing this anniversary of the Armenian genocide and in honoring the memory of their ancestors.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Joe D'Adamo, the 1995 winner of the Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr. Good Citizenship Award. Named for the late, great Mayor Thomas D'Alesandro, this recognition is bestowed on Mr. D'Adamo for his contribution to the Italian-American community. Joseph G. D'Adamo, Sr., was born in Baltimore 66 years ago. While growing up in Little Italy, he went to St. Leo's School. D'Adamo studied at both Baltimore Polytechnic Institute and the University of Baltimore. D'Adamo worked at the Baltimore Evening Sun for 42 years before retiring in 1987. D'Adamo rose to the position of chief makeup editor where he was responsible for graphics and deadlines. As the Baltimore Sun's restaurant critic for many years leading to his retirement, D'Adamo enjoyed sharing his culinary finds with Baltimore. He still loves food and writing restaurant criticism for the East Baltimore Guide. Sports has always played an important role in this sports writer's life. Currently, he is the Baltimore correspondent for Sports Illustrated, a position he has held for 25 years. Beyond writing, D'Adamo refereed basketball games for two decades in Baltimore city schools. As commissioner of the Maryland Wrestling Association from 1988 to 1993, D'Adamo was responsible for assigning referees to wrestling meets throughout Maryland. He also coached wrestling at Catonsville Community College and Catholic High. D'Adamo's involvement with youth also has included 6 years in the Boy Scouts of America. He has served as Scoutmaster of Troop No. 177. These activities naturally led to D'Adamo's service as president and board member of parent-teacher associations at the Catholic High School and Archbishop Curley High School. He has been active with the Holy Name Society and in 1967, he received the President's Award. D'Adamo is a member of the Little Italy Lodge, OSIA. In 9 years, he has served in a variety of executive positions at the lodge. A proud achievement for D'Adamo is the very successful lodge cookbook, ``Let's Cook Italian'' which he conceived, edited, and compiled. Joe is married to the former Anna Giorgilli, also a native of Little Italy and a member of the lodge executive council. They have three children and nine grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to salute Joe D'Adamo for the honor he has brought to the Italian-American community by his personal, professional, and civic accomplishments. He truly deserves this award for his contributions in the tradition of Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 31, two colleagues of mine, Representative George Miller and Representative Anna Eshoo and I did something that the leadership of this body does not want to do. We held a hearing on the impact of the proposals by the Republican majority to cut the present system of Federal student financial aid. We held a hearing to educate the public about these stealth proposals which would terminate investments in education to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. We held a hearing in order that Congress may hear from the students, parents, and administrators who would be affected by these proposals. We held a hearing because the Republican majority of this body does not want people to know the full impact of the Draconian budget slashing that the Republican majority needs to pay for their tax cut for the wealthy. This body has passed legislation already, Mr. Speaker, which was proposed by the Republican majority which will rescind nearly $200 million from our fiscal year 1995 student aid programs. This body will take up legislation later this week which would set in motion a series of budget cuts which will terminate what remains of it by enacting the largest tax giveaway to the rich that we have seen in recent memories. What does the Republican majority propose? They are proposing the elimination of the deferred interest of Stafford and Perkins loans programs which enables students to obtain loans without having to pay interest during the time they are in school. The Republican majority is proposing eliminating campus-based programs such as college work-study which provides not only a job to help pay for an education but a job with purpose and meaning. The Republican majority is proposing eliminating the supplemental educational opportunity grant which goes to help the most needy students for whom a Pell grant is not enough. The Republican majority is proposing passing on to students, families, and administrators over a quarter of a billion dollars a year in increased educational costs just to the people of California. For our freshmen coming in this year, this coming year, this is a $1 billion fee hike over the course of their education for 4 years that families, students, and schools must absorb. In my congressional district, nearly 16,000 students would lost their Stafford loan benefits at an increased cost of over $11 million. Nearly 7,000 students would lose their supplemental education opportunity grants, an annual loss of $2.3 million for those families. Two thousand three hundred students in San Francisco would lose college work-study. And the majority, the Republican majority, would hand them a bill of $2.5 million to make. All told, just for the students, families, and administrators in San Francisco, over $17 million annually in costs would be passed back to the students, with no expectation on how those millions would be made up. But the most telling points, the most poignant testimony, the most powerful arguments against this upside-down policy came from those who would be directly affected by those proposals. We had an extraordinary panel of seven students and parents. The students were hard-working young men and women, bright, intelligent future leaders of our country and their parents who work hard and sacrifice to give their children every advantage, an education. Here are some of their voices. One senior at San Francisco State University testified. His name was Michael Rodriguez. Michael is 27, born and raised in San Francisco, and was a Marine for 9 years. He was assigned to both the Panama invasion and Operation Desert Storm and participated in the liberation of Kuwait. During his combat assignment he was filling out his application and financial aid forms for San Francisco State. Here is what he had to say. Here is what Michael Rodriguez had to say: For me, financial aid has allowed me to achieve my goals, for which I am thankful. I give thanks every day that programs like financial aid exist for students like myself. Students are cutting their time at school in half so they can work full-time in order to support themselves as financial aid money is becoming scarce. Financial aid, in my opinion, creates a win-win situation. Financial aid is capital investment for the future. Diana Summy Hunt, a student at the University of San Francisco, said this about work-study: ``This program has permitted me to work on campus at the financial aid office as a receptionist and file clerk. On the average, I work 18 hours per week, which allows me to pay for my books and supplies, not to mention it has also given me a variety of job experiences.'' ``It is not easy,'' she said, ``juggling classes and a job. College work-study enables me to do both. If these programs were eliminated, I can honestly say that I have no idea where I will find these funds. My mother's and my finances are already stretched. What will people do to better themselves if education is out of the question?'' Perhaps one of the most heartfelt testimonials came from Ronelle Garibaldi, a member of a two-income family whose son, Michael, also attends Our children's education has been a family project. We all contribute as much as possible. Our second son, who was also accepted here at the University, is instead attending a community college until his brother finishes here to help defer costs. We feel there are no extras in our life we can eliminate. However, because we believe so strongly in higher education, the sacrifices go almost unnoticed. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to reject any of the ill-conceived proposals made by the Republican majority to eliminate this opportunity for higher education for our young people and thus weaken our country.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, March 30 was the 14th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan and the wounding of his press secretary, Jim Brady. To commemorate that date, 82 national organizations, representing more than 88 million members, joined together in a campaign to protect sane gun laws. Mr. Speaker, we commemorate this anniversary because the extreme Republican majority has vowed to overturn the Federal firearms laws that we have enacted, including the Brady law, the assault weapons ban, and other firearms provisions of last year's crime bill. These laws have begun to make America safer. A poll conducted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and Handgun Control, Inc. on the effectiveness of the Brady law found that background checks in 115 State and local jurisdictions stopped 19,000 felons and other prohibited persons from obtaining handguns. The American people also continue to show strong support for gun control legislation. A 1993 Time/CNN poll showed that 92 percent of Americans supported the Brady law. Mr. Speaker, this Republican attack on our gun laws is senseless. Letting more criminals buy guns will not reduce gun violence and putting more guns on the streets of America will not make our streets safer. Let us not weaken the gun control legislation that has begun to make our country a safer one. I urge my colleagues to work against Republican attempts to undo the laws that have already reduced gun violence and saved lives.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, just when we thought we had seen it all in attempts by the Republicans in Congress to give tax breaks to their wealthy friends, they have gone beyond the pale. It is hard to imagine, but today the Republicans will bring a conference report on H.R. 831, a bill to provide a 25-percent deduction for health insurance for the self-employed. That is good. But they rejected the opportunity, the amendment, that would have allowed that tax deduction to go for the employees of the self-employed. Instead in the bill they insisted that the conferees drop a Senate provision that would have closed a tax loophole for billionaires. Under current law the wealthiest Americans can take advantage of a tax loophole by renouncing their citizenship, thereby avoiding taxes on gains made while they were U.S. citizens. These people made their money benefiting from our country, from the security, from the democracy, from the work force, and, yes, even from the tax laws in this country. Now they are given to give up their citizenship. They are given a tax break at the expense of the employees of the self-employed. Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage, this is a shame, this is downright unpatriotic.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my strong support for the Endangered Species Act. For over 20 years, this landmark legislation has been America's contract with nature. It has also ensured the survival and conservation of hundreds of native fish, wildlife and plant species--and with them our natural heritage. Mr. Speaker, the Endangered Species Act has helped to preserve biological diversity within our country by preserving species that are on the brink of extinction. Since 1973, 731 U.S. species have been listed under the Endangered Species Act. Without this vital protection, many listed species, including our national symbol, the bald eagle, would have long since become extinct. Mr. Speaker, the Endangered Species Act is at a decisive crossroads. While it has come under attack from those who contend that it places unnecessary roadblocks in the path of economic development, polls consistently show that the American people support the Endangered Species Act by wide margins. The American people know that to abandon the Endangered Species Act would be tantamount to an open season on endangered waterfowl, marine mammals, songbirds, and other federally protected wildlife. It would give a green light to international traffickers of fur-bearing animals, wild birds, elephant ivory, tigers, and other wildlife and wildlife products. The time to protect America's biological resources is now Mr. Speaker. I urge all of my colleagues to support re-authorization of a strong Endangered Species Act.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose amendments which restrict the rights of legal immigrants to collect Government benefits, such as Medicaid, food stamps, and disability aid. in many cases, have resided in the United States for much of their lives, discriminates among residents who have paid their taxes, contributed to the growth of the U.S. economy, served in the Armed Forces, and, like millions of their native-born counterparts, have played by the rules in the hope of realizing their own American dream. This legislation would erode basic American values by denying equal treatment under law to law-abiding taxpayers who have done nothing but choose to make the United States their home. This bill punishes legal immigrants for making that decision. This legislation also robs communities all over the country of the taxes paid by legal immigrant residents--taxes that would be taken by the Federal Government, but not returned to those same communities in the form of health care and other needed benefits. Recent studies show that immigrants pay $25 to $30 billion more in taxes each year than they use in services. Such funds will no longer flow back to our local communities under this bill. This bill would also deny basic survival assistance to children who are legal permanent residents. Most of these children will go to school, and some day work, and pay taxes, and contribute to American society together with our own children. Denying them benefits is a failure to invest in our own future. Mr. Chairman, the anti-immigrant provisions contained in this extreme Republican measure are ill-conceived and mean-spirited. They will result in increased costs to our cities and States and will worsen the discrimination already felt by many in our Nation's immigrant communities. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4 and vote for the Mink substitute.