Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the constitutional amendments before us which would limit the congressional terms of Members of Congress. I have three major objections to the constitutional term limits. First of all, as a woman, I take issue with term limits because they represent an obstacle to the contribution that women can make to our country. Look around this capitol, and you will see in Statuary Hall the distinguished American men who have served here in this body and in the Senate. For over 200 years men in Congress have had the opportunity to develop standing and to become internationally recognized leaders on the great issues of the day. To limit congressional terms just as the number of women who are serving in Congress is increasing denies the Congress and the American people the benefit of the wisdom and experience of America's women. I do not think that is an intentional move on the part of the proponents of term limits, but it is an unintended consequence. Just as more women are coming into power, term limit advocates are saying, ``Not so fast. We have changed the rules. You will not have the same opportunity as men to make your contributions to America.'' Second, I oppose term limits because the real winners, if term limits pass, are the special-interest lobbyists in Washington, DC. They have no term limits and are not forced to step down after 6, 8, 10, or 12 years. Passage of congressional term limits, particularly in the absence of real lobbyist reforms, will pit seasoned lobbyists against rookie legislators. Mr. Chairman, the clear winner would be Washington's professional lobbying corps while the American people will be the clear losers. Third, the reason I oppose term limits, I heard some of my colleagues say that State legislators have term limits. Serving in the Congress of the United States is different. We not only deal with the domestic issues, we have to deal in the international scene. We have to understand the politics of the U.S. and foreign relationships involved in decisions that we make. We will have our rookie legislators competing against sophisticated legislators in other countries, putting our country at a disadvantage. This is no time for drive-by legislators. It is time to respect experience, it is time to oppose term limits, and I urge my colleagues to oppose all the constitutional term limits amendments.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the 100th Anniversary of the M.H. de Young Memorial Museum of San Francisco. This great museum, founded at the close of the 19th Century, remains one of San Francisco's landmarks and a leading institution for collections and exhibitions in the United States. It was in 1894 that newspaper publisher M.H. de Young, organized a fair to showcase the strength and diversity of the California economy. In record time, the California Midwinter International Exposition of 1894 was a dramatic success, so much so that de Young, the Director General of the Exposition, convinced city leaders to retain the Fine Arts Building from the exposition in Golden Gate Park. This building became the centerpiece of de Young's drive to form a museum in memory of the fair, to create a collection of ``treasures and curios for the entertainment and instruction of the people of California.'' On March 21, 1895, the Memorial Museum was opened as, de Young put it, ``to create a nucleus of what someday would be a great museum.'' In a few short years, over half a million visitors a year passed through its turnstiles. It survived the earthquake of 1906, and in 1915, de Young had concluded that the growing collection and crowds at the museum required a new structure. De Young commissioned an architect to draw plans for a new building, and arranged the funding for the building from private donors and his own savings. On April 15, 1917, the cornerstone was laid for the new building, which, as the invitations stated, was to be the ``New Memorial Museum.'' By the mid- 1920's, other sections, including the tower, were added to the museum, and attendance was then said to equal the New York Metropolitan Museum and surpassed that of the Smithsonian. In 1924, the museum's board of trustees was incorporated into the San Francisco City Charter by a vote of the people. The same vote saw M.H. de Young recognized for his contributions to the museum by adding his name to the formal title which stands today: The M.H. de Young Memorial Museum. Through the 1930's, the de Young developed its reputation as a museum of international significance. Major exhibitions from Europe now included San Francisco, and many began under the de Young's leadership. Beginning in the 1930's, major exhibitions on American art in 1935 and 1939 presaged the museum's later emphasis on the field, including an exhibition showcasing Bay Area photographers who became household names: Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, and Imogen Cunningham. In the 1960's, the de Young secured the rights to Avery Brundage's magnificent collection of Asian Art, eventually helping to establish the Asian Art Museum. The de Young also continued its aggressive exhibition of young American artists, including some only just becoming known, such as Wayne Thiebaud, Richard Diebenkorn, and Robert Arneson. In 1972, the de Young Memorial Museum and the California Palace of the Legion of Honor merged to operate as The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco, an operating structure still in place. Nevertheless, the de Young Memorial Museum continues to hold its separate identity to the art world, bringing breathtaking exhibitions of Van Gogh, the treasures of King Tutankhamen, the murals of Teotihuacan, and the Impressionists to the people of the San Francisco Bay Area. The de Young's reputation for its American art continued with important retrospectives of American giants such as Andrew Wyeth and Grant Wood. Mr. Speaker, the de Young Memorial Museum is 100 years young, still growing, but now a great museum which continues to be a nucleus of great exhibitions. It will celebrate its Centennial with a landmark showing of some of the last paintings of Claude Monet, entitled ``Monet: Late Paintings of Giverny from the Musee Marmottan.'' On behalf of the Congress, let us salute all those who, for 100 years, have contributed to the success--past, present, and future--of the de Young Memorial Museum. Key Chronology of de Young Memorial Museum 1894, San Francisco Civic Leaders organize 1894 California Midwinter International Exposition. Midwinter chosen to showcase the benign climate of the Bay Area. M.H. de Young is the driving force behind the Exposition. 1895: De Young, convinced that a Museum located in a Park was always popular (after touring Met in Central Park), leads drive to have a ``memorial museum'' to commemorate the 1894 Fair in Golden Gate Park. 1895, MARCH 21: Memorial Museum is dedicated. 1915: De Young commissions Louis Mullgardt, architect of the 1915 Panama-Pacific Fair, to design a new building to replace Midwinter Fair buildings. De Young arranges financing from donors and his own money. 1917: Cornerstone laid for what is now present day de Young Memorial Museum. 1924: Museum now part of City Charter. Name changed in Charter Amendment to ``M.H. de Young Memorial Museum.'' 1932: Group f.64 show held at de Young, showcasing Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, and Imogen Cunningham. 1933: Dr. Walter Heil becomes director of de Young. Remains until 1960. 1935: First major exhibition of American painting at de Young. 1939: Major exhibition on American art entitled ``Frontiers of American Art.'' 1949: Due to decay and danger, external ornaments of de Young Museum structure are removed. They include allegorical figures and symbols of California, including Spanish conquistadors, Franciscan padres, pioneer man and woman, science industry, and art. ca late 1950's: negotiations begin for acquisition of Avery Brundage collection of Asian art, led by Gwin Follis. 1961: Heil retires. Jack McGregor takes over, begins construction of new wing for Asian art. 1969: Asian Art Museum ``splits off'' from de Young. 1969: Ian McKibbin White takes over as acting Director of de Young for Van Gogh exhibition. 1972: de Young and Legion of Honor merge as The Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. 1973: Andrew Wyeth retrospective. 1976: Grant Wood retrospective. million visitors. 1981: ``Art of Louis Comfort Tiffany: exhibition. 1986: ``The New Painting: Impressionism'' exhibition. 1987: Harry S. Parker III becomes Director of The Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. 1995: Trustees decide on a $96 million plan to demolish present building housing de Young Memorial Museum, build new structure on site. 1995: Monet: Late Paintings at Giverny from the Musee Marmottan'' opens in San Francisco.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We have heard some great speeches, I think, on the floor today on both sides of this issue, and many of us, of course, were impressed by the speech of the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. In it he referred to term limits as the dumbing-down of democracy, and I thought, since he said that, he gave me license to tell another little, make another little, analogy about what I think of these limits. Mr. Chairman, it is with the highest regard and respect for the maker of this motion, the presenter of this amendment, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] that I referenced Yogi Berra's story. Yogi Berra in high school did very poorly on his test, and his teacher said, ``Don't you know anything?'' Yogi Berra said, ``I don't even suspect anything.'' Mr. Chairman, that is what I think is part of the problem here. in this room can tell us, we thought we had a handle on it all. We thought we had developed judgment that would make us best equipped to answer all the problems facing our society, and indeed our freshman class, when it comes to the Congress each time, every 2 years, is a source of reinvigoration to this body. Many of us look to the freshman recruits and say: Who among them will be President of the United States? Who among them will have an answer to solving the problems in our society? Who will have the answer to making peace? Who will preserve the environment? Who will make a better future for our children? Certainly all of them will have a role, but one or so of them may really rise to the top, and so we look with great anticipation to that new class. But that is not to say that there is not a role in this body for many ranges of experience, the fresh, reinvigorating freshmen, as well as the seasoned senior legislators in this body, institutional Members from whom we can all learn, and so, whether it is dealing domestically or in foreign affairs, we need to have people who know politics, know the relationships our Government has with other countries and know how to solve problems in our country. Mr. Chairman, I say with high regard for my colleagues that I urge my colleagues to vote against this.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this welfare reform bill. It contains provisions which discriminate against legal immigrants by denying them access to programs that they have paid for with their taxes and their contributions to the Social Security and unemployment insurance systems. This extreme Republican legislation would bar legal immigrants from receiving Medicaid, Food Stamps, disability aid, and other critical programs which provide a safety net to citizens and noncitizens alike. Mr. Chairman, it seems un-American to deny legal residents access to programs that they have already paid for through taxes and payroll deductions. Indeed, it should be noted that legal immigrants pay far more in taxes than they receive in benefits. According to the Urban Institute, legal and undocumented immigrants pay approximately $70.3 billion per year in taxes, but receive only $42.9 billion in services such as education and public assistance. Mr. Chairman, like the other bills in the Republican contract, this bill targets the weak and defenseless. This bill punishes those who came here legally and waited years to obtain legal residency, played by the rules, paid their taxes, and contributed to the Social Security and unemployment insurance systems. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Deal substitute to the Personal Responsibility Act. The Deal alternative, unlike the legislation before us, was crafted to make good on the promise of moving people from welfare to work. It ensures the welfare recipients will be better off economically be taking a job rather than staying on welfare. While the Republican welfare proposal offers no real resources for able-bodied recipients to find work, the Deal substitute engages each AFDC recipient in an individual responsibility plan detailing the ways in which he or she can find work and how the State can assist in this goal. This morning, the front page of the Washington Post told us that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that none of the States will be able to meet the Republican welfare proposal's work requirements. We see now that the Republican majority has given us a bill that is not only mean, but also completely unworkable. The Deal substitute works in partnership with State and local governments to ensure that special situations receive adequate resources and flexibility and that the goal of getting people off welfare into work can be met. Individuals can begin a job search with the assistance of a Work First program and resources for child care. They have the option of starting or continuing education. This plan acknowledges that, in order to get people to work and to keep working, we must assist them with their individual needs. No one situation is the same, and this substitute addresses that dilemma. Further, the Deal substitute explicitly states that all savings from the bill will be applied to deficit reduction, not to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. And most importantly, the Deal substitute does not in any way attempt welfare reform at the expense of poor children. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Deal substitute. It is a realistic and responsible means by which to end the cycle of welfare dependency by focusing on work.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Talent amendment. The Republican welfare reform plan is weak on work, and this amendment does not solve that problem. This amendment provides neither enforcement of its work requirements or resources to meet them. This amendment has no guarantees that those who get work will make a living wage. The Talent amendment would not lift people out of welfare and into work. It would create an even large class of working poor in this country than we have now. Real welfare reform should emphasize self-sufficient employment that provides a liveable wage, that can create a long-term solution to the crisis of poverty. The Talent amendment does not strengthen the work requirements in the Republican bill or provide real job opportunity. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Talent amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to remind my colleagues of the most critical aspect of this welfare reform debate--the effect this legislation will have on poor children in our Nation. Child poverty is an enormous drain on the Nation's economy. Every year of child poverty will end up costing billions of dollars in lower future productivity, special education, crime, foster care, and teenage pregnancy. We must create long-term solutions for this shameful problem of child poverty in our country. Yet this Republican welfare reform bill seeks to solve this problem by punishing our Nation's children simply for this misfortune of being born to a family without means or resources. This bill punishes children born out of wedlock, born to an unmarried teenage mother, born to a welfare family, or born without established paternity. Poor young children in working families are victims of this bill. Twenty six percent of children under 6 years old live in poverty, nearly Republican proposal would reduce Federal funding for child care by 20 percent over 5 years. Child care assistance is often the key to whether families can move from welfare to work. How can reform succeed if this need is not sufficiently addressed? Disabled children are victims of this bill. The Republican proposal would cut SSI benefits to disabled children by $10.9 billion over 5 years. Within 6 months, 250,000 of the 900,000 severely disabled children now receiving benefits would lose them. These children already face difficulties in coping with the world, only to be met with more challenges in these cuts. Abused and neglected children are victims of this bill. Incidents of child abuse number up to 3 million a year, yet child welfare and protection programs, including foster care and adoption assistance, will be replaced with a block grant, cutting $2.7 billion in funding over 5 years. Hungry children are victims of this bill. The School Breakfast and Lunch programs and the WIC program will be replaced with nutrition block grants. Funding for these block grants is set below the funding which would have occurred under the current programs, yet the number of families in need of these programs continues to rise. We are responsible for our children's future. When our children are neglected, our Nation will suffer. President Harry Truman said that nothing is more important in our national life than the welfare of our children. If you believe this as I do, you will join with me in opposition to this legislation that will undeniably harm our most valuable resource.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink substitute to the welfare reform legislation. The Mink plan is a straightforward proposal for reform which can effectively accomplish what the Republican proposal simply will not do--move welfare families from dependency to self-sufficiency through work. The emphasis is on the poor finding work and keeping it. Through a self-sufficiency plan individualized for each participant in the JOBS program, welfare recipients can work to identify their goals and needs and achieve them. The Mink substitute retains the entitlement status of AFDC, child care programs, nutrition programs, and child welfare programs to insure that poor families are protected while they try to break out of the prison of poverty. Most importantly, the Mink plan protects our most valuable resource and the innocent victims in the welfare reform debate--our children. It does not include requirements to deny benefits to children of teenage mothers of children born to families already on AFDC. It provides critical resources necessary to obtain a job, such as education, job training, and child care. The Mink plan also does not discriminate by denying benefits to legal immigrants, very few of whom come to the United States seeking public assistance. Mr. Chairman, the Mink substitute seeks a positive and realistic long-term solution to the problem of welfare dependency. I support this amendment, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for calling this special order tonight to commemorate Greek Independence Day. On Saturday, March 25, we will celebrate Greek Independence Day--a national day of celebration of Greek and American democracy. This date marks the 174th anniversary of the revolution which ultimately resulted in Greece's independence from the shackles of the Ottoman empire. On this occasion, it is fitting to reflect on the important bonds between our two countries. Just as the writings of Plato and Aristotle served to inspire our Founding Fathers during the American Revolution, Greek patriots fighting for their independence during the 1820's were equally inspired by Jefferson, Madison, and George Washington. Greece's contributions in the fields of culture, drama, arts, architecture, and philosophy have led the world. In addition, as Atlanta prepares for the 1996 Olympiad, we should remember Greece as the birthplace of the modern Olympic games. In my district of San Francisco, the contributions of the Greek- American community are a vital part of my city's diverse community. I am proud of the Greek community's successful participation in all facets of American life. Again I thank my colleague, Mr. Bilirakis, for calling this special order and join him in recognizing the 174th anniversary of Greek Independence Day.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a legendary figure of San Francisco's waterfront, William ``Bill'' Bailey, who passed away on Monday, February 27, 1995. Bill Bailey was born in Jersey City, NJ, and brought up in Hoboken and the tough Hell's Kitchen section of Manhattan. Shipping out to sea at the age of 14, he joined the Industrial Workers of the World--the Wobblies--and began his career as a labor activist from the day forward. Active in the maritime unions, Bill was a member of the generation of young radicals who transformed the labor movement of our country. He participated in the walkout on the waterfront which became San Francisco's famed general strike of 1934. In 1935, Bill and a group of seamen boarded a German liner tied up in New York Harbor, the Bremen, and tore its Nazi flag from the bow mast. Accounts from that incident recollect that a security force of nearly 300 were unable to stop Bill and his group. In 1937, Bill went to Spain as a member of the Abraham Lincoln and George Washington battalions. Wounded several times, he participated in almost all the major engagements of the war. In 1939, after returning to the United States, he resumed his leadership role in the maritime industry, and was elected vice president of the West Coast Maritime Firemen's Union. In the early 1950's, during the height of the McCarthy era, Bill was kicked out of the union under a screening program imposed by the U.S. Coast Guard. He then joined the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, rising to the vice presidency of San Francisco Local 10. After retiring from the waterfront in 1975, Bill began a second career as an writer and actor, working in a major TV series on the Spanish civil war and appearing in several feature films and documentaries. He published his memoir, ``The Kid from Hoboken,'' in 1993. But he never retired from his lifelong commitment to social and economic justice, continuing his activism until his dying day. Mr. Speaker, Bill Bailey was part of the proud waterfront history and tradition of San Francisco. On Sunday, March 20, Bill was remembered at a memorial service convened by the waterfront unions which he loved. On behalf of the Congress, allow me to express our condolences to his son, Michael, and pay tribute to his work as a labor and civic leader for San Francisco.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing bipartisan legislation to create a Presidio Trust at the Presidio in San Francisco which is included in the national park system as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort by my colleague from California, Representative Stephen Horn, and by Representative Benjamin Gilman from New York. These Members, from east to west, appreciate the national significance of the Presidio and the need for innovative ways to reduce Federal costs for its operations. Presidio Trust legislation, H.R. 3433, was considered by the Congress in the last session where it passed the House and was reported by a 20 to 0 vote in Senate committee. It was not taken up by the full Senate in the final days of the session. Creation of a Presidio Trust would enable Federal costs for this national park to be reduced considerably. The structure of the trust is based on the study of 19 management models by independent financial and real estate experts who determined that this legislative proposal would be successful in reducing costs to the Government. The legislation calls for private-sector expertise and management of the Presidio's extensive nonpark properties. There are over 900 structures at the Presidio, almost half of which are historic. A significant number of these properties could be leased with revenues retained to support renovation and operation of the park's facilities. A small board of planning and financial experts would direct the trust's activities and the National Park Service would continue its traditional management of resource protection and open-space park areas. Today's legislation differs from H.R. 3433 in its provision for a smaller, more efficient board of experts, and its streamlined management structure. The bill's financing provisions are subject to appropriations and additional private or other financing possibilities are included. A more detailed summary of the legislation is included below: Summary of Presidio Trust Legislation, 104th Congress Background: The Presidio is a scenic and historic former Army post that is now included in the national park system as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Because the Presidio contains substantial building space, it offers an opportunity, unique within the national park system--to generate revenues from building leases. In order to realize the savings that this opportunity affords, a public-private management entity (Presidio Trust) with specialized financing and managerial expertise is needed. The Presidio Trust would manage the renovation and leasing of specific Presidio properties transferred by the National Park Service. Ownership would be vested with the federal government and the Presidio would be operated as a national park with the Park Service continuing its traditional management of open space areas and visitor and public safety services. management models by independent financial and real estate experts. The Trust would be equipped with the following authorities: The Presidio Trust would have managerial jurisdiction over certain Presidio properties. It would manage the rehabilitation of these properties and would lease buildings to rent-paying tenants. Revenues from leases would be retained and used to offset costs at the Presidio, driving operating costs down and reducing the need for federal appropriations. Capital improvements would be financed primarily from private sources. The Trust could augment or leverage private lending through credit enhancement, direct loans, and bonding. Such financing would be subject to review and approval by the Treasury Department. Oversight of the Trust would be achieved through routine reporting and auditing requirements. The Trust would adhere to the enabling legislation for the GGNRA and the Presidio General Management Plan. For nearly 150 years, the federal government has invested in the Presidio as an Army post. The best way to protect this asset is by creating a management and financial mechanism that will enable it to be used and to pay for itself. The Presidio Trust offers a good government approach that recognizes fiscal realities and offers a less costly, more business-like approach to the management of important federal assets at the Presidio.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] for her leadership on this issue and for informing us of the impact of the Republican cuts in Texas.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in one hand I have letters from the students of Cesar Chavez Elementary School in San Francisco asking President Clinton and the Congress not to cut the school lunch program. In the other hand I have H.R. 4, the Republican so-called welfare reform bill. Mr. Speaker, I hope never the twain shall meet. I hope that the children of Cesar Chavez Elementary School, or any of the other children throughout this country, never have to feel the pain of this legislation. I hope it does not pass. Mr. Speaker, why I hope it does not pass is because in this legislation is contained provisions that will cut the children's nutritional programs, and, yes, even the school lunch programs. Why? Because it does not provide enough money to cover all of those programs because it does not require the Governors of the States to spend 100 percent of the school lunch monies that are sent to the State, but only 80 percent because it eliminates the nutritional standards that are contained in the school lunch program presently, because it eliminates the eligibility that is contained presently in it so that poor children, who really need nutrition, will suffer from this legislation. And why is that? That is because our Republican colleagues want to save money for a tax break for the wealthiest Americans. Why start with children first? Women and children first were traditionally those first to the lifeboats. Here they are first to the gangplank, to walk the plank. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr]. As he comes up, I want him to join me in recognizing that this school lunch program cut will cut 503,000 children, will be dropped from the school lunch program under the Republican plan in the first year. Mr. Speaker, that is why I say that H.R. 4, the Republican so-called welfare reform bill, rewards the rich, cheats the children and is weak on work, and in our State of California, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] and I will place this on the map together--67,900 children will be cut from the school lunch program in just the first year. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 4, and I am pleased to yield to my colleague from California. gentlewoman yielding to me, and I want to bring up a point about H.R. 4. It takes food away from poor kids to fund tax breaks for the wealthy, sort of Robin Hood in reverse. According to the California Department of Education, each day 745,000 children will no longer be eligible for school and child care needs. Almost 1,000,000 kids a day, will no longer be eligible for meals. H.R. 4 really hurts because it abolishes the donated food program, donated food. Right now 49 counties in California have been declared natural disasters. More than 6,000 pounds of food has already been delivered. In the Loma Prieta earthquake 880,000 pounds of food were delivered. H.R. 4 eliminates those food donation programs. People in my district are livid. A letter from John Cruz, superintendent of Fowler Unified School District in Fowler, California, writes: Living in an agricultural area with a large population of low-income students, I am keenly aware of the negative impact this legislation will have on our students and parents. You can rest assured that a large number of students will come to school hungry. We make every effort to overcome obstacles so that we can effectively educate our students. But hunger has no remedy but a warm meal, served in the comfort of a school cafeteria. I understand that tough decisions must be made, but please don't make them at the expense of our kids. This is a bad bill. I urge everyone to oppose it. Not to mention the fact that this bill abolishes the donated food program--donated food, Mr. Speaker--which is crucial during natural disasters like the devastating floods that have pounded my district this year. More than 880,000 pounds of food was delivered to needy families who fell victim to the natural disasters of the Loma Prieta and Northridege earthquakes. Six thousand pounds have already been delivered during the recent floods in my district. I have received hundreds of letters from community leaders across California and throughout the country who are alarmed by the threat this GOP bill poses to kids. John Cruz, superintendent, of Fowler Unified School District in Fowler, California writes: Living in an agricultural area with a large population of low-income students, I am keenly aware of the negative impact this legislation will have on our students and parents. You can rest assured that a large number of students will come to school hungry. We make every effort to overcome obstacles so that we can effectively educate our students. But hunger has no remedy but a warm meal, served in the comfort of a school cafeteria. I understand that tough decisions must be made, but please don't make them at the expense of our kids. Suzanne Du Verrier, supervisor for Alisal School District food services department in Salinas, California writes: School lunch is not a welfare program. Including school lunch in Personal Responsibility Act as a part of the nutrition block grant would become an administrative nightmare for States and the various school districts. All the work that has been done to bring meal requirements into a healthier realm will evaporate. Our Nation's children must not pay for the sins of the Nation's adults. Maria Doyle, from Monterey, writes: This approach will increase child care costs for low- and middle-income parents, even forcing children out of regulated care and back into latch-key situations. Finally, little 8-year-old Annie Brown of Salinas, writes: Everyone needs to learn to love, please don't hurt the children. Mr. Speaker, don't be mistaken, Democrats across the board are demanding change. Democrats want to reform welfare, but we know we can do it without putting the health of innocent children at risk. Democrats believe that we must move people from welfare to work not homeless shelters. We should demand and reward work rather than punishing those who go to work. This mean-spirited GOP measure will hurt far more than it will help Americans who want to free themselves from the destructive grasp of social welfare programs. It will only throw them out into the street, without the benefit of the training they need for meaningful employment or the child care they need for their children. H.R. 4 is poorly conceived legislation and deserves to be rejected. It's been rushed through Congress for one purpose and one purpose only: campaign P.R. and a spot on the nightly news. The children of my district can't stand up to this Speaker's bully pulpit, but I can, and I encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] pointed out in his very poignant story about the mother who had to choose between leaving her child at home or going to work to provide for that child, nothing is more important in moving, transitioning, poor women from welfare to work than the availability of quality child care, and that is what is so sad about H.R. 4, because it eliminates child care assistance to more than 400,000 low-income children in the year 2000, it eliminates child care funding now guaranteed for AFDC recipients participating in education, training or work activities. It eliminates the child funding now guaranteed for 12 months to AFDC recipients making the transition from welfare to work, and it cuts more child care services by $2.4 billion over the next 5 years. Now the amendment offered by our colleagues, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] and the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], is a step in the right direction, and I commend the sponsors for offering it, but I recall a story by the former Governor of Texas who said, ``You can put lipstick on a sow and call it Monique, but it's still a pig,'' and this, I contend, is a cosmetic change to this terrible bill, H.R. 4. In my State of California, H.R. 4 cuts out 35,000 child care slots. This bill would restore 9,000 of those. That, as I said, is a step in the right direction. It is interesting to me that our colleagues keep saying why are you criticizing H.R. 4, it is a great bill, and then come to the floor with 25 amendments of their own to make the bill more acceptable, this being one of them, this not being enough, because it does not restore traditional, transitional child care services that have been proven essential to move mothers with young children from welfare to work, does not ensure that the additional funds it authorizes will even be available. It only raises the authorization level, and without it being an entitlement, the funds may never be there, and would continue to cut, I repeat, cut child care services for more than 300,000 low-income children in the year 2000. It would continue to pit poor parents and their demands to children and to work to provide for those children. It addresses the basic fundamental problem with this bill, it is weak on work, cheats children, and rewards the rich, all of this to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4. I commend the Members for introducing this amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand H.R. 4, the Republican so- called welfare reform package. I urge everyone to read this, to read this and weep. Because in the attempt to improve the welfare system, which we all agree needs to be reformed, our Republican colleagues have cut--yes, cut--the children's nutrition programs that have been an entitlement for America's poor and hungry children for over 50 years. Our colleagues on the Republican side will wave a CRS report that says they do not cut the School Lunch Program, but they are avoiding the issue. Because what we are talking about is the children's nutrition program, which includes school lunch, which includes the afternoon program and summer programs for children whose parents work and who need child care, something we are trying to encourage: work. And if you just want to talk about school lunch, let's talk about that. The funds that this bill, H.R. 4, puts in here gives the Governors the authority to spend only 80 percent of the money. They do not have to spend 100 percent. They remove the entitlement; they remove the nutritional standards. Poor children lose a lot in this bill, which rewards the rich, cheats the children, and is weak on work. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. That is an important point because when you are talking about an entitlement, then the money will be there for the children. You are talking about a block grant that has several shortcomings. First of all, it is a limitation on the amount of money that will be spent regardless of the growth and need for children who are hungry. Second of all, your block grant requires that the Governors only spend 80 percent of that money on the school lunch program. Third of all, your block grant removes the nutritional requirements so what the children are getting does not relate to what the children may need nutritionally. So you can spread it out among more kids so that they meet certain criteria for the block grant, but it may not be more kids who need the school lunch. Therefore, the nutrition that the really needy kids are getting is good. Fourth of all, you are talking about the school-based lunch program, and you are cutting out the summer program and the afternoon program and the child care program.

Ms. PELOSI. The difference, my colleague, and thank you for yielding, is that we are talking about a block grant versus an entitlement. When you are talking about a block grant you are talking about a limitation on the number of children and the kind of nutrition they would get.

Ms. PELOSI

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

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman very much. I would like to reference your remarks where you just said there was an increase in school lunch program, and I want to, and I appreciate the time to respond to that, there is not an increase in the school lunch program. There is a cut.

Ms. PELOSI. I wish the gentleman would wait until my time so we can continue.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of debate, I would like to respond to the gentleman's comments. What we have to do, if we are going to debate this in a way that is clear to the American people, is to define our terms. The gentleman from Ohio was waving the CRS report before and saying how much of an increase that the Republican proposal was of the school-based lunch plan versus, as you are referencing, President Clinton's increase on an entitlement program as opposed to a block grant. The point I want to make is that what the gentleman was waving was already a cut, yes, a cut, because it is only referring to the school- based lunch program. It does not provide funding for the afternoon program or the summer school program. So you have already cut children's nutrition plans.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, while we all agree that welfare must be reformed, I rise in opposition to the en bloc amendment. I am proud of the just anger that my Democratic colleagues have demonstrated on this floor today in defense of children because, Mr. Chairman, this Republican proposal is cruel, yes, cruel to children. Why? Because it cuts nutrition, child care and opportunity for children. How can we, the greatest country that ever existed on the face of the Earth, come here together on this floor today with the leadership Republican proposal to take food from the mouths of children, take heating oil from senior citizens in order to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans? This is cruel to children because 2 million children will no longer receive school lunches by the year 2000; it denies SSI benefits to hundreds of thousands of children with disabilities. And on the subject of abused and neglected children that our colleague from Connecticut just addressed, which cuts $2.7 billion of funding over 5 years. Vote against this bill which is easy on the rich, tough on children, and weak on work.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Talent amendment. The Republican welfare reform proposal needs work. This amendment does not provide it. I urge my colleague to vote ``no.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to call to the attention of our colleagues H.R. 4. My colleagues who are viewing this from home, our friends who are viewing this from home should read this and weep. This is the Republican welfare proposal. It rewards the rich, cheats children and is weak on work. But one particular aspect of this proposal is the federal children's nutrition program which I wish to address this evening. My colleague earlier this evening referenced the fact that the child nutrition programs came into being following World War II, when the military told us that our recruits were malnourished and this took its toll on their physical and mental well-being. Since that time, feeding the hungry has not been a debatable issue in our country. Indeed, President Richard Nixon said, a child ill-fed is dulled in curiosity, lower in stamina and distracted from learning. This has been our national policy until now. The proposal that the Republicans have placed on the table will take food off the table for America's poor children. And this is why. You have heard much discussion here this evening about whether the Republican proposal is a cut or is not a cut in what they call the school lunch program. But what we are addressing in this bill is the full federal children's nutrition program. So if we are only talking about school lunch, then you are talking about a situation where the Republicans are saying, we are not cutting school lunch. But what they are cutting are the after-school and summer programs. They are giving the same amount of money and they say with an increase except they are cutting out one very important facet of the children's nutrition program. In addition to that, they are making this a block grant and not an entitlement. Under the law now, there is a formula for needs-based, a formula that is needs-based for children who are poor. And now the Republican proposal will eliminate that entitlement and call it a block grant instead, which means a definite amount of money will be sent to the states. Why does that create a problem? For the following reasons: First, in that block grant, there is a reduction of the money for the full children's nutrition program, including school lunch, school- based lunch program, and assistance for after-school and summer programs. These programs are very important to day care, children in day care who have to stay after school because their parents work. And work is the goal that we have for the welfare program. So that undermines that goal there. Second, in this block grant, it removes eligibility, so you do not have to be poor to be a beneficiary of the Republican proposal, which means that poor children will get less nutrition because more children can avail themselves of the program. This is supposed to be needs- based. In addition to that, on the block grant program, it only says that a governor must spend 80 percent of the money that the Federal Government sends to the state. The governor only has to spend 80 percent of the money on the children's nutrition programs. So already we have had a reduction of 20 percent because that is all the requirement is. This is why people are concerned about what they hear coming out of Washington, DC. People are not fools. People who have received this benefit because it is necessary for children's nutrition know when they are getting cut. And then to hear semantics used about, well, when I said school lunch program, I did not mean after school or I did not mean summer school. Well, we are talking about the children's nutrition program. Let us refer to it there, and that is being cut. And eligibility is being removed and the requirement to spend all the money is being removed. This is not even a fight between domestic spending versus defense spending, as is classic in this body, because this came from the military, recognizing the deficiencies and the malnutrition that they saw in our troops coming out of World War II. So this is about the strength of our country. I did not even really get started. What I want to just say is that what the Republicans are doing is a real cut in the children's nutrition program. The welfare proposal they are proposing should not even contain a nutrition cut. Nutrition has never been part of the welfare program. It rewards the rich because that is what this cut is about, giving a tax break to the wealthiest Americans. It cheats children, and it is weak on work. I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.