Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a true American pioneer, a hero to millions, a leader in the truest sense of the word: Edward V. Roberts. Ed Roberts was known and loved by millions throughout the world, for, by the sheer force of his will, intelligence, and genius, he created the independent living movement for people with disabilities. Born in 1939, Ed was stricken with polio at the age of 14. Left a quadriplegic by the disease, Ed soon found that the world did not recognize that though his body had been ravaged, his mind had not. Confronted with the fact that his high school would not let him graduate because he could not complete mandatory driver's and physical education classes, Ed began his career in tenacious advocacy by convincing his principal to lift that restriction. In 1962, he became the first severely disabled student to attend the University of California at Berkeley, overcoming opposition to the idea of a student who required a respirator during the day and an iron lung at night. He was physically separated from other students by the school, which housed him at Cowell hospital. Not being content with being a trailblazer for the admission of disabled students, he led a successful fight to allow them to use regular student housing. After receiving a bachelor's and master's degree in political science, and after teaching at UC-Berkeley for 6 years, Ed left the school to establish the Center for Independent Living. The center's goal was to carry out much of what Ed had spent his life battling alone: helping to find and promote housing, transportation, and assistance for the disabled. His work caught the eye of Governor Jerry Brown, who appointed him the head of the State Department of Rehabilitation. He held the position until 1982. During his tenure, Ed was tireless in promoting the rights of the disabled, and working to ensure that independent living was not merely a goal, but a need for the severely disabled. In 1984, in recognition of his work, Ed received a $225,000 MacArthur Foundation ``Genius'' Award. Using the grant, he, Judy Heumann, and Joan Leon established the World Institute on Disability, which has become the most influential policy and research center on people with disabilities. Indeed, the World Institute and Ed played a key role in helping passage of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act. Most recently, Ed and the World Institute have been profiled in a three-part series on people with disabilities and technology called ``People in Motion.'' In addition, Ed has been working on a project to create work stations for people with disabilities that would allow them to own their own small businesses, such as expresso or vending carts. It was my privilege to work with Ed on this project with regard to the San Francisco International Airport. Unfortunately, the world lost Ed Roberts on March 14, 1995. On Sunday, March 19th, a memorial service was held to honor Ed Roberts at the UC-Berkeley campus. I, along with countless others, was proud to call Ed Roberts my friend. He has been called, with little hyperbole, the ``Ghandi of the disability rights movement.'' Comparisons, however, do not do justice to the spirit, the passion, which filled the soul of Ed Roberts. Perhaps Ed defined it best: after overhearing a doctor telling his mother that it would be better if he died from the polio because he would be left a vegetable, Ed immediately thought of the artichoke, which was prickly on the outside with a tender heart. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Congress, allow me to express our condolences to his son, Lee, his mother, Vona, and brothers Mark and Ron. But, more importantly, we must continue our fight as a Nation for the rights of the disabled. It is only through our actions that we properly pay tribute to Ed Roberts' enduring legacy of good works and his tireless pursuit of justice on behalf of the disabled.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, Sunday was a beautiful day at the Capitol because 2,000 children from all over this area from West Virginia to Pennsylvania came to oppose cuts in the school lunch programs proposed by the Republican majority. It was reported as the children's crusade against Republican budget cuts. Despite bus rides for as long as 5 hours, the children were very eloquent indeed. A 10-year-old with the distinguished name of Touissant L'Ouvertuo Tingling-Clemmons said, ``Children have to say no to a lot of things. Food should not be one of them.'' Chastity Crites from West Virginia, a daughter of a construction worker, said she does not eat if he, her father, does not work except for school lunches. A sixth grader from southeast Washington said, Marche was her name, ``The food tastes so good and sometimes when we get to school we are hungry. Why would they cut school lunches?'' Why would they indeed? The issue of hunger in our country has never been a debatable one and indeed feeding the hungry has always enjoyed bipartisan support. In 1946 President Truman signed the Federal School Lunch Program into law. President Richard Nixon later said a child ill- fed is dulled in curiosity, lower in stamina and distracted in learning. Why then is the Republican majority putting on the House table a proposal which will take food off the cafeteria table for America's children? The extreme Republican proposal will cut, I repeat, it will cut the number of poor children who benefit from the program. It will cut the School Lunch Program benefits because it says that States must spend only 80 percent of the Federal school lunch funds on school lunches because it removes nutritional standards and removes eligibility requirements. Mr. Speaker, this proposal will hurt our children, weaken our future and dim the prospects for our future. I urge our colleagues to think again about the Republican proposal to cut the School Lunch Program.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to the Republican rescissions bill before us. With this bill, the Republicans end the war on poverty and declare war on the poor, instead. I am saddened that my Republican colleagues have turned their energy, their fervor and their fury toward attacking the most vulnerable among us. I note with particular concern the impact of the proposed funding cuts on housing programs designed to help the neediest and the most vulnerable in our society, children, the elderly, the disabled, and people with AIDS. More than 40 percent of the cuts in this bill come from low-income housing programs. The $7.2 billion in Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] cuts equals \1/4\ of HUD's total budget. HUD estimates that the rescissions will affect 530,000 elderly households and 630,000 families with children. The complete elimination of the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS [HOPWA] program will deprive at least 50,000 people with AIDS and their families of much-needed housing assistance. Public housing takes a direct hit. Efforts to improve public housing facilities and in some localities, to demolish unfit buildings and replace them, will be stopped dead in their tracks. The cuts in the low income housing preservation program will result in the displacement of countless low income families from affordable housing. Estimates of the impact of losing preservation funds range from a low of 27,000 families losing their apartments to a high of 75,000. In most of the affected communities, there is no other housing available for these families. The affordable housing stock is disappearing at an alarming rate and these cuts will only hasten the process. Where are these people supposed to live? At the same time that these important programs are being cut, the Republicans are also cutting incremental rental assistance, the Section 8 Program. The funds the Republicans with housing certificates and vouchers. For the first time in the more than 20 years of this program, there will be no incremental funding of tenant-based rental assistance--a program which is widely acknowledged by conservative analysts to be HUD's most cost-effective one. Mr. Chairman, the list of important and innovative housing programs to be cut by this legislation goes on and on and time prevents me from listing all of them. I wish to note for the record, however, my opposition to Republican cuts of $90 million in the lead-based paint program; $350 million in pension fund rental assistance; and $38 million in the Youthbuild Program, which not only increases affordable housing, but also provides job training and skills for lower income Americans. I am also opposed to the $350 million cut in the Community Development Block Grant [CDGB] Program. CDBG funds allow community- based organizations to provide a wide range of services in their communities. Why, at a time when we are trying to promote community control are we tying the hands of communities trying to meet community needs? What is the response of my Republican colleagues to our concerns about the impact of these draconian cuts? They say we simply cannot afford to provide housing for needy Americans. I say we simply cannot afford not to provide this housing. This bill cuts funding which has already been voted on by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. In many cases, communities and housing providers across the country struggling with trying to meet ever-growing needs with limited funds, will lose money for community development and for housing which is part of a community plan and which is already underway. Where progress is being made, it will be stopped. Would that halting progress is the only consequence under the Republican plan. Unfortunately, the bill before us today takes giant steps backwards in the fight against homelessness. If we have learned anything about homelessness over the course of the past decade, it is that it costs less to keep people in affordable housing than it does to help homeless people with the transition back to being fully-functioning members of our society. The Republican cuts in our national housing programs are not only inhumane and cruel, but they are also inefficient and costly. While the Republican leadership trumpets the saving they propose today, they are covering up the costs their cuts will create tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided and cruel bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order. I wish to state that if the point of order of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] is in order, that just points to the ultra-restrictiveness of the rule under which this bill was brought to the floor because we did abide by----

Ms. PELOSI. My objection is, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] pointed out, that the amendment is in keeping with those criteria that were set out by the Committee on Rules that funds come from the same title and the same subcommittee allocation. The amendment does do that, and it would seem to me that it would be out of order to call a point of order against it on that score. If, in fact, it is so, it just again points to the restrictiveness of the rule when we are used to open rules on appropriations bills.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] also for his leadership on this issue. I would like to address my remarks to the Chair, noting that I am pleased the chairman of the full committee is here, because what the purpose of what we are doing in the rescission bill is to reduce the deficit. I contend and maintain that to cut these funds will increase the deficit. Our colleagues have pointed out that the reason we found this situation, Mr. Schumer, Mr. McDermott, and I, in the authorization was a number of years ago was to enable the private sector, the nonprofit sector, to minister to the needs of those with HIV and AIDS to prevent them from becoming homeless. Stress on the immune system is the worst possible thing you can do. Homelessness increases stress. So this enables the continuum of services to be provided to people with HIV and AIDS; it keeps them out of hospitals, it eliminates the necessity for them to have other kinds of assistance, including income support. I think if our goal is to reduce the deficit, we can do so by restoring these funds. Mr. Chairman, it is also a compassionate thing to do.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, in a famous court case a Supreme Court Justice said of obscenity, ``I know it when I see it.'' Mr. Chairman, we see it here today in the form of the Republican rescission bill on the floor. The bill abandons all sense of decency by cutting programs for children and seniors in order to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Chairman, because the Republican disaster bill cuts investment in children, like nutrition, education and summer jobs, it will create other problems which will increase the budget deficit while it increases the human deficit. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, it is indecent to cut assistance to homeless vets and to cut other veterans' medical benefits while giving tax benefits to the wealthiest Americans and corporations. It is indecent to cut home heating oil for senior citizens. It is indecent to ask California's children to pay $2 California will receive for the earthquake disaster. Mr. Chairman, much has been said about saddling our children with increased deficits--budget and human. We must defeat this bill today.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong opposition to the Republican Rescissions Package before the House today. In my view, this bill is part of a larger GOP agenda to advantage the wealthiest of Americans at the expense of low-income children and the elderly poor. Mr. Chairman, the Congress is currently operating under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 which sets out the criteria for Congress to respond to ``dire emergencies'' with supplemental appropriations. President Clinton was correct in declaring the situation in California--and elsewhere--a dire emergency and requesting $6.7 billion in disaster-related supplemental appropriations. Under the Budget Enforcement Act, this spending does not have to be offset by spending cuts in other programs. If the Republican Leadership disagrees with the Budget Enforcement Act, then they should propose to amend it to create a special emergency fund within the budget to be used to respond to natural disasters. In future years, this would eliminate the need to make dire emergency supplemental appropriations that are the Republican majority has made no such long-term proposal. Instead, they are attempting to use the California disaster as an excuse to cut popular programs that primarily assist disadvantaged children and the elderly poor. The bill before us provides $5.4 billion in disaster relief but $17.1 billion in program cuts. The bill should not be considered in isolation from the larger Republican agenda. Next week, the House is expected to consider the Republican welfare reform legislation which would cut up to $70 billion from programs to assist low-income individuals and families. Following that bill, the Budget Committee is expected to report legislation that would lower the caps for discretionary programs by an additional $100 billion over the next 5 years, thus further cutting important programs for low-income families. These cuts are necessary to offset the $189 billion in tax cuts--primarily for upper- income Americans and corporations--expected to be passed as part of the Republican contract later this month. The bill before the House today would: Terminate summer employment programs for 600,000 disadvantaged youth; Cut over $100 million from education programs for disadvantaged children; Terminate the program that helps more than 6 million poor families pay their home heating bills; Cut housing assistance for 630,000 poor families with children; Cut housing assistance for 530,000 elderly Americans; Terminate the program that provides housing for people with AIDS; Cut 30 percent of the funds for public broadcasting; and Cut over $200 million from VA medical programs. Other cuts in this bill, such as the Healthy Start Program to reduce infant mortality and the nutritional program for women, infants, and children designed to decrease high-cost childhood medical problems, are only going to add to the Federal deficit in the long run. Eliminating housing assistance for more than 50,000 people with AIDS is not going to save money. Without housing, these people will become even sicker and end up in more costly hospital-based care. By cutting $186 million from this program, the Federal budget deficit will be increased through higher entitlement spending. If this bill was about deficit reduction, then it would be part of an orderly process responding to a revised 5- or 7-year budget agreement. But it is not. If this bill was about responding to President Clinton's request to provide dire emergency funding for the California disasters, then it would be addressed in an orderly process as provided for under the Budget Enforcement Act. But it is not. This bill is the beginning of a radical effort on the part of the Republican majority to provide tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans and tax breaks for corporations at the expense of safety-net programs for Americans who have the greatest need for assistance. This bill is part of a larger agenda which does not reflect the majority views of the American people. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican rescissions package.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am in strong opposition to the rule governing debate on the Republican rescissions package before the House today. In my view, the rule, like the bill itself, is unfair. This rule protects defense spending and spending for special projects while exposing most Federal programs that assist low-income children and the elderly poor to excessive cuts. In particular, I object to the provision that any restoration of spending proposed for cuts must be offset by another cut in the same section of the bill. Thus, if we want to restore funding for summer youth employment for 600,000 disadvantaged youth, we would be asked to take the money from education programs for other disadvantaged youth. We could not move money from the star wars program in defense to restore funding for education programs. Those of us who would like to restore proposed cuts to public broadcasting would be forced to take the funds from education for disadvantaged children. Yet, those Members with extreme amendments, such as cutting funding for public broadcasting even further, can offer any amendment they want. But any saving from these amendments can not be used to restore any important program being cut in the bill. I urge a no vote on the proposed rule.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, rise in strong opposition to the Crane amendment to increase the cut in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. But do not let the Crane amendment distract us from what is really happening here today, because this rescission bill advanced by the Republican majority has huge cuts in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting: $47 million for this next year, and $94 million the year beyond. So any words of support for CPB in opposition to Mr. Crane, Members should demonstrate their support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by voting against this bill in final passage to eliminate these huge cuts that are already there. Mr. Crane in his remarks said people who do not have cable should get it. We should increase access to cable. What will that do? Increase access for our children to more sex and violence on television. Cable television, even if people can afford it, which they cannot, is no substitute for educational TV, which reaches 99 percent of our households. Our society benefits immensely from the unique educational services CPB provides that stretch across age, sex, gender, and ethnic boundaries. Make no mistake, this rescission bill has serious cuts in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. If you support it, you will vote against this whole bill in the end, because then you will be truly standing up for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Another point our colleague has made is that if you eliminate public funds, it is still public. That cannot possibly be true.

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

Ms. PELOSI. The gentleman knows, of course, what somebody grosses is not necessarily----

Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will further yield, the gentleman is on the Committee on Ways and Means, a great leader on that committee. Could the gentleman give us some idea of how much of tax write-offs the commercial television stations get each year, how much the taxpayer subsidizes their operations.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Taylor amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Yates to strike the Taylor provision from the rescissions bill. The committee provision mandating targets for timber salvage sales on our Federal lands simply does not belong in this bill. It is an issue that should have been given ample and careful review by the appropriate authorizing committees. The timber industry will love this Federal give-away. Under the pretense of saving our forests, the Taylor provision would instead double the amount of logging in our forests and wilderness--to 6.2 billion board feet. Armed with the excuse of removing salvage timber, roads will be built where they should never have existed and forest areas, previously untouched, will bear the new scars of timber industry greed. The Taylor provision is a back-door attempt to open the floodgates on increased timber harvests. It is bad public policy and should be rejected. I urge my colleagues to support the Yates amendment to strike this excessive provision.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my opposition to H.R. 956, the Common Sense Product Liability Reform Act of 1995. This bill is an undisguised assault on the safety of the American people that will result in more unsafe products, more injuries, and less compensation for those who are hurt by corporate misconduct and negligence. Mr. Chairman, this bill contains two provisions that are particularly harmful to women: The punitive damages cap and the provision Punitive damages in our Legal System Act as a powerful incentive for companies to make safety improvements to their products. A punitive damages award as little as $250,000 will fail to serve as an effective deterrent in many cases. In addition, capping punitive damages awards at $250,000, or at three times the amount of economic damages, whichever is greater, discriminates against women and others who may not have large incomes. Economic damages were generally not as high in the products liability cases of women who developed endometriosis, pelvic inflammatory disease, toxic shock syndrome, and other illnesses that left them sterile when they used copper-7 intrauterine devices or super absorbency tampons. A punitive damage award cap is less harmful to those with higher salaries and discriminates against those who have lower incomes, many of whom are women. Justice would be meted out very differently for two people injured by the same defective Ford Pinto. The corporate CEO could seek a large punitive award based on economic damages, while the homemaker would be severely limited by the provisions of this bill. Second, Mr. Chairman, this bill shields products from liability that have been previously approved by the FDA in spite of the fact that the record is filled with examples of drugs that have been approved or underregulated by the FDA only to cause immense physical harm once authorized for sale on the open market. For example, the FDA approved high estrogen birth control pills which caused renal failure. It also approved the copper-7 intrauterine device which caused sterility in young childless women. The FDA defense shields negligent manufacturers at the expense of our nation's women and should be rejected. Mr. Chairman, there is no national crisis in products liability litigation, nor is there any epidemic in punitive damages awards. To the contrary, the facts demonstrate that our current State-based products liability system works well. It allows our citizens to seek redress when they have been injured by corporate negligence and it provides ample incentives to correct defective products when cause harm. This bill favors powerful corporations at the expense of women, the elderly, the young, and all working Americans. I urge my colleagues to reject these ill-advised reforms and to vote against H.R. 956.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall No. 219, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado, Mrs. Schroeder. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye''. I support the Schroeder amendment which would strike from the bill the section which abolishes joint and several liability and would modify the bill's cap on punitive damage. As written, this bill will discriminate against women, children, and the elderly by placing greater value on economic losses over noneconomic losses. Similarly, placing a cap on punitive damages awards also discriminates against these groups. Women, for example, will suffer because noneconomic losses such as reproductive capacity and physical disfigurement are much harder to qualify than annual earning capacity. In addition, women's earning capacity is historically and currently less than men and would be punished by this bill. The Schroeder amendment acknowledges this legal discrimination and deserves our support.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose H.R. 925, the Private Property Protection Act of 1995. This legislation will create an entitlement program for polluters, a billion dollar sweepstakes for land speculators, and will leave the American taxpayer holding the bag. In the words of a Justice Department official who testified before the House Judiciary Committee, ``hard-working American taxpayers * * * will be forced to watch as their hard-earned wages are collected by the Government as taxes and paid out to corporations and large landowners as takings compensation.'' At a time when so-called entitlement programs are under attack by the Republican Party, H.R. 925 would create an immense new entitlement program and bureaucracy with so much legal uncertainty that the only sure winners will be our Nation's lawyers. Mr. Chairman, contrary to what the authors of this legislation would have us believe, American law is based on a deep respect for private property rights. The fifth amendment itself symbolizes this respect for property rights by ensuring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. H.R. 925 represents a radical departure from long-settled Supreme Court doctrine. It abandons the modern definition of the fifth amendment's ``takings'' clause by requiring that private property owners be compensated if regulations limit land use and diminish property values by just 10 percent. This means that almost any loss in market value would require compensation. This replaces an entire body of constitutional law with a clumsy measure that ignores the collective wisdom of two centuries of Supreme Court decisions. Mr. Chairman, for over 200 years, private claims to compensation under the fifth amendment's ``takings'' clause have been successfully balanced against the public interest on a case-by-case basis. H.R. 925 does not add to this delicate judicial balance in a constructive manner. Rather, it shatters legal precedent by imposing a heavy-handed new doctrine that will only result in unjust windfalls to wealthy corporations at a tremendous cost to the health, safety and pocketbooks of all Americans. Who will pay for the costs of environmental clean-up when polluters degrade our environment? The American taxpayer. This bill protects the interests of polluters at the expense of the American taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, we should heed the voice of our constituents as we consider this bill. In a recent CNN/Time poll, people were asked whether a landowner that is barred from installing a toxic waste dump should be compensated. Fully two-thirds of those interviewed, 66 percent, said no. Let's not allow the American taxpayer to get ``taken'' by this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 925.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1022 is regulation by strangulation. If you think government red tape has been tied in knots, just wait until you experience the results of this Republican red flag against public health and safety and the environment. The cumbersome imposition of regulations on top of regulations will only serve to delay approval of anything to protect public health and safety and the environment. The resulting delay will threaten the lives of many and the future of all Americans. In our daily lives, the delay will translate into unregulated food and chemical products and in the longer term, the risk will be the loss of our national patrimony. Once again, the contract is placing financial interests over the interests of American public. A CNN/Time poll taken at the end of January determined that Americans consider environmental protection one of the most important problems--23 percent--or very important--65 percent. Only 23 percent of the people surveyed believed that protection from pollution had gone too far. The risk in risk assessment is great. You cannot put a price on preventing illness, saving lives or preserving natural lands. Common sense should be brought to this debate on dollars and cents. A petroleum industry official had this comment about H.R. 1022: This reminds of 1981, when the industry shot itself in the foot * * * Business not only lost but managed to engender much of the strident public environmental sentiment that later resulted in far stricter laws. H.R. 1022 does not discriminate between regulations--ones where the process should be re-examined or streamlined and ones that should be eliminated. The indiscriminate overriding of existing protections throws out the good with the bad. Like other components of the Republican regulatory reform package, H.R. 1022 represents another opportunity for special interests to paralyze the Federal regulatory process at the expense of average, taxpaying Americans. In this case, Mr. Chairman, less government means more government. The layers of bureaucracy that will be added to the regulatory process by H.R. 1022 will put more lives in harm's way. If you want to vote for more government and less public health and environmental protection, then you have the right bill in front of you. If you want to vote for government reform, you will need to look elsewhere. I urge my colleagues to vote for less government--vote ``no'' on H.R. 1022.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] for calling this special order tonight on the subject of immigrants and welfare benefits. As we debate the complex and sometimes heated issues surrounding immigration generally, I am hopeful that the tone of this discussion will be both reasonable and balanced. Furthermore, I hope that this special order, and others to follow, will deflate some of the politically-charged myths surrounding the immigration debate. One of the myths often cited to support the contention that immigrants cost more than they contribute is that they are heavy users of welfare. The facts, however, are very different. When refugees are excluded, statistics show that immigrants of working age are considerably less likely than native-born residents of working age to receive welfare. Only 3.9 percent of immigrants, who come to the United States to join family members or to work, rely on public assistance, compared to 4.2 percent of native-born residents. The failure to differentiate between the legal status of refugees-- who are explicitly entitled to public benefits upon arrival--and other immigrants contributes greatly to continuing misperceptions and to proposals of potentially ineffective policies. It should also be noted that those legal immigrants who seek public assistance must meet much tougher standards for the major programs than native-born residents, while undocumented immigrants are ineligible for any public assistance except emergency medical care under Medicaid and some nutrition programs. Another one of the myths surrounding immigrants and welfare benefits is that these benefits act as a magnet which attract immigrants to the United States. According to an INS report on the legalized alien population, this is simply untrue. Fully 64 percent of legal immigrants come to the United States to join family members, 14 percent come because U.S. employers need their skills, and 16 percent are fleeing political persecution. Very few immigrants come to the United States seeking public assistance. Undocumented immigrants legalized under the amnesty program come to the United States for the same reasons: to join close family members-- 62 percent, to work--94 percent, and to flee repression--28 percent, not to use public services like welfare. Mr. Speaker, most of the Republican welfare reform proposals would hurt U.S. citizens and their sponsored relatives. Some of these proposals involve outright bans on more than 60 Federal programs for legal immigrants who have not yet become citizens. One of these proposals would require Federal programs to report to the INS all legal immigrants who receive benefits for more than 1 year. These immigrants would be considered public charges by the INS and therefore subject to deportation. I urge my colleagues to examine the facts and not the myths surrounding the debate on immigrants and welfare benefits. The facts are these, Mr. Speaker, and they speak for themselves. Immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. According to the Urban Institute, legal and undocumented immigrants combined, pay approximately $70.3 billion per year in taxes and receive $42.9 billion in services such as education and public assistance. Legal immigrants' Social Security deductions help keep the Social Security system solvent. Because immigrants tend to be young and have years of work ahead of them, they are significant contributors to the Social Security system. The combined total of all immigrants' income came to $285 billion according to the 1990 census. This was 8 percent of all income earned in the United States, and equal to immigrants' share of the population--7.9 percent. Immigrants spend much of their income on U.S. goods and services, helping to spur the U.S. economy forward. Undocumented immigrant workers provide tax dollars to the United States because undocumented workers are subject to payroll deductions and income taxes, they help to support programs like unemployment insurance and Social Security, even though they themselves are not eligible for benefits from these programs. In 1990, undocumented immigrants paid $2.7 billion in Social Security and $168 million in unemployment insurance. Once again, I thank Mr. Becerra for his leadership on this important issue.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, this weekend U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor announced that the United States and China reached an agreement that will provide protection of intellectual property rights for the United States companies and provide market access for intellectual property-based products. Good for him, and I commend the Clinton administration for their tough negotiating stand that they took on reaching this agreement. The agreement between China and the United States contains the following commitments from China: to take immediate steps to address rampant piracy throughout China; to make long-term changes to ensure effective enforcement of intellectual property rights; to provide United States rights holders enhanced access to Chinese markets. This includes a commitment for no quota on United States audio-visual products among other provisions. Mr. Speaker, this agreement--and it was necessary for the administration to be so very tough--this was necessary because about 3 years ago, the Bush administration, in addressing this intellectual property problem, engaged in a memorandum of understanding with the Chinese. Operating in good faith, the United States entered into this agreement which, unfortunately, the Chinese did not enter into in good faith. Because China did not live up to its obligation of the agreement to enforce its laws and regulations, intellectual property rights have been virtually absent in China. Respect for them have been absent and piracy rates are soaring in all the major centers along China's increasingly prosperous east coast. In the past 2 years Chinese companies have been exporting pirated products in large volume. Not only are they pirating intellectual property for domestic consumption, they have become exporters to Asia and Latin America, Canada and the United States of our intellectual property. For example, Mr. Speaker, China--in China they have a capacity to produce 75 million CD's for a domestic market that can only absorb 5 million CD's annually. So they produce 15 times more than they can possibly consume domestically under the present circumstances. So it was, as I say, I thought that the memorandum of understanding was weak when it was entered into, but the Bush administration gave the Chinese the benefit of the doubt. Since that time, as you know, Mr. Speaker, there has been a boom in the Chinese economy, the rates of growth have been record highs--have reached record highs. And with that increase in the boom have increased the piracy and violations of our intellectual property agreement. The agreement is one thing, however, and enforcement is another. Today's action was necessary because of the failure of the MOU, as I mentioned. Why am I suspicious and why do we have to be very vigilant as far as the Chinese on the enforcement of the intellectual property? Because of several factors. In the past 5\1/2\ years, since Tiananmen Square, the trade deficit with China, largely because of unfair trade practices of the Chinese, has increased from $6 billion to $30 billion--$30 billion trade deficit. I told you about the CD's, 75 million--for domestic consumption, 5 million. At that, pirated, even the 5 million would be pirated. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that the paramount leader, Deng Xiaping visited south China to support the market reforms going on there and with great pride he visited the Shen Fei factory in 1992, the very factory that was producing pirated illegal U.S. intellectual property. Many of us, people even in the administration, are suspicious of the Chinese willingness to crack down on that particular factory because relatives of the highest leaders in China benefit from the profits. They are the owners. Indeed, it might surprise you, Mr. Speaker, to know that even the trade ministry of China uses pirated Microsoft software. So when I say that they do not operate in good faith in the memorandum of understanding, you know why I am suspicious. But one other thing happened over the weekend in relationship to China. I wanted to call it to the attention of our colleagues. Twelve intellectuals petitioned China on corruption. The dozen prominent intellectuals formally petitioned the parliamentary bodies to conduct an independent investigation into corruption of the Chinese leadership. The presentation of the 2,000-word petition marks the first time in a year that an organized group of scholars, writers, and former Communist Party members--indeed, two of these people were former editors of the People's Daily; they had been fired because their prodemocratic sympathies, proreform sympathies. In any event, my point is: If the administration pays at least 1 percent of the time to the rights of the intellectuals, the workers, the people of China as it is done to intellectual property rights, we might be able to have some success in that arena as well. I wanted to make sure our colleagues were aware of the petition of the intellectuals.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, last week when we saw the proposals that were being made by the Republican leadership to cut the Federal nutrition programs, our colleague, Tony Hall, a great leader in the fight against hunger in America and indeed throughout the world, said, ``Up until now, the issue of hunger has not been debatable.'' Indeed it should not be. A great country, a decent country like ours should heed the Bible and feed the hungry. Before we vote on these changes, because we will have to vote on them, which will jeopardize our children's health, we should think and we should listen. We should listen to the teachers. Teachers tell us that a hungry child is a distracted child. A good meal is an investment in learning. We should listen to the doctors. With the WIC Program, the doctors tell us that a dollar spent on nutrition for a pregnant mom saves $4 to be spent on problems to be dealt with with a sick child later, a malnourished child later. In addition to our concern about the child, this has fiscal overtones. We should listen to the generals. It is indeed they who had suggested the School Lunch Program when they saw that our troops were malnourished in the 1940's. This is not about domestic versus defense. This is about a strong defense. We must feed our children.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman: I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 450, the Regulatory Transition Act. This is an ill-conceived bill with unknown and unintended consequences. For example, this bill could halt trade sanctions against China if passed in its current form. Health and safety regulations are also at risk. Passage of this bill could result in another outbreak of the E. coli bacteria if food inspection regulations are not implemented. In addition, testing standards for urban water supplies would also be endangered, possibly resulting in another outbreak of cryptosporidium which contaminated the water supplies of Washington, DC and Milwaukee. Mr. Chairman, regulations need to be reformed, not eliminated. This bill poses a serious threat to the health and safety of all Americans. The enormously broad scope of H.R. 450 represents an assault on one of the basic functions of the Federal Government--protecting public safety and health. In calling for a regulatory time-out on things like consumer, worker, and environmental protections, the Republican extremists are attempting to dismantle some of our Nation's most critical health and safety standards and protections. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleagues from Ohio and New Jersey, Messrs. Stokes and Payne, for calling this special order on Black History Month and choosing this year's appropriate theme; Reflections on 1895: Douglass, DuBois, Washington. This theme sets forth the resolve, dedication and commitment of three giants, Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. DuBois, and Booker T. Washington, who were profound scholars and leaders. Their determination to change the course of history for African- Americans have inspired peoples of all races to continue fighting for freedom, equal access, and justice--without regard to skin color. The goals that these leaders championed in the 19th century remain every bit as significant today. The only thing that has changed is the scope of their dreams and the new challenges that face the African- American community. Like Frederick Douglass, African-American community leaders and organizations are united in their efforts to achieve greater political equality for all citizens of color. In the city of San Francisco, Eva Patterson has worked as a tireless advocate for political, economic, and social justice. As the executive director of the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights, Ms. Patterson continues to be an eloquent spokesperson on human and civil rights issues, and leads an organization which is known nationwide for its effective advocacy on behalf of the poor, the oppressed, and the ignored of our society. As the first African-American to receive a Ph.D in history from Harvard University, W.E.B. DuBois understood that education represented the key to economic advancement and remained an activist for expanded educational opportunities for African-Americans until he died in 1963. Like Dr. DuBois, Larry Gray, of the San Francisco Midnight Basketball League, has also worked to expand educational opportunities for young African-American men in San Francisco's western addition. Larry Gray, an ex-NBA player, is a role model to the youth of San Francisco, emphasizing the value of education, job training, and peer support in the development of African-American youth. Also like Dr. DuBois, another African-American, Cmdr. Richard Holder, has stressed the importance of self-sufficiency and achievement in his career. Commander Holder, the head of San Francisco's Special Operations Division, is the highest-ranking African-American in the San Francisco Police Department. He is known for his commitment to assisting his community through initiating community policing, participating in neighborhood organizations, and serving as a role model to all young people in San Francisco. Like Booker T. Washington, who concentrated on the economic development of African-Americans, Etienne Le Grande has developed an organization devoted to economic empowerment. As executive director and founder of WISE--Women Initiatives for Self-Employment--Etienne has become a leader in small business creation and incubation in the San Francisco Bay Area. Through her efforts, hundreds of women, primarily low-income and minority, have been helped in finding and realizing their dreams of ownership and self-sufficiency. Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to represent California's 8th Congressional District and to work with the many outstanding African- American leaders and community organizations based in the city of San Francisco. I have had the privilege of extolling the achievements of other African-American leaders on previous occasions, and there are many more yet to recognize. But recognizing them for their work is not enough: we, as Members of Congress honoring Black History Month, must pledge to support their efforts and enable them to continue their efforts until true economic, social, and political justice is achieved. As we work toward greater equality and freedom in our society, we must remind ourselves that the efforts of Mr. Gray, Ms. Patterson, Mr. Holder, and Ms. Le Grande, and their predecessors, represent struggles that deserve credit and appreciation every day--not just during Black History Month.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to the defense supplemental appropriations bill and in strong support of the Obey substitute. The original bill is objectionable in many scores. For example, it takes $1.4 billion from the domestic budget, Head Start, education, job training. It takes $1.4 billion from that and puts it to defense purposes. In addition to that, it increases the deficit over the next 5 years, increases the deficit over the next 5 years. Some of the cuts it makes in the domestic budget include school construction and youth employment job training. What it also cuts is the dual-use strategy in response to the cold war reality. It builds on our ability to compete in global markets if we would support the Technology Reinvestment Project. But, in fact, this legislation cuts it. It also has a rescission of $160 million from the Environmental Restoration Fund. Even Governor Wilson of California, Mr. Chairman, has voiced his strong objection to deleting this environmental restoration. We are all for readiness for our forces. In order for them to be ready, they must be able to read. Let us not cut the domestic budget, and let us cut the deficit.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Gibbons/ McDermott substitute to H.R. 831. Mr. Chairman, this substitute would establish a 25-percent deduction for health insurance costs to employees not eligible to participate in an employer-sponsored health plan. For those employees whose health insurance is not employer-sponsored, this 25-percent deduction is an issue of fundamental fairness which deserves our support. Denying employees who must buy their own health insurance the same deduction we give their employers ignores real need. Had the Republicans on the Rules Committee allowed the rule for H.R. 831 to be open, rather than completely closed, we could be considering other meritorious amendments to this legislation, such as the proposal to extend the current deduction to 80 percent. Unfortunately this rule, like so many others we have seen was closed. In addition, Mr. Chairman, the McDermott substitute would narrow the tax preference for sales of radio, T.V. and cable companies to minority-owned firms, rather than repealing it as under the bill. Before section 1071 was enacted minorities owned virtually to TV or radio stations in this country. Thanks to this provision of the Internal Revenue Code, the numbers of minority owned media properties, while still very small, are growing. Repeal of this section will completely undo the progress this Nation has made to provide opportunities for African-Americans, Asian- Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and others to fully participate in the economic and social fabric of our Nation. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Gibbons/McDermott substitute.