Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I think this is an example of where, as the gentleman is a supporter of the bill and I am an opponent of the bill, that I am seeking to mitigate the impact of the legislation, and I am pleased that it is acceptable to the majority side. I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], for their support of the amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman.

Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Committee.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Congress that throughout this great Nation, our Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese-American communities will celebrate the new lunar New Year. Today, January 31, 1995, marks the year 4693, the Year of the Boar in the Chinese astrological calendar. During this festive season, Korean families will eat their traditional mandukook and duk, the Vietnamese their banh chung and banh tet, and the Chinese their dumplings and precious mooncakes. Families will reunite at homes and at large banquets, and observe traditional rituals which stretch back centuries in these ancient cultures. Mr. Speaker, San Francisco is a city built by immigrants who have come to our shores. Each has enriched and invigorated our Nation through their hard work, their family values, and through the cultures and traditions they bring to the American experience. Today, in San Francisco, and other communities throughout the Nation, we should honor the Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese-American communities, and wish them a happy new year.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, picking up on the sports theme from our colleague from Arizona, Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pride to praise the San Francisco 49ers organization, to Eddie DeBartolo, Carmen Policy, and Coach Seifert. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday California had a great day, it sent two great teams to the Super Bowl, where they were received magnificently by Miami. And, with all the admiration in the world for the San Diego Chargers, I say we are so proud of the San Francisco victory. It was a joy to see a litany of records broken one after another; five for five, five times at Super Bowl, five victories as six touchdowns by Steve Young, most post-season receptions by Jerry Rice, three touchdowns--you know the story--Ricky Watters. The list goes on and on. We are so proud. The coach of the San Diego Chargers probably said it best when he said, ``I think San Francisco is a great football team, maybe one of the best of all times. I don't know what we were--maybe we were awestruck.'' Awestruck for San Diego, awesome for San Francisco, all- time great team. I am very, very proud to join my colleagues. I see Congressman George Miller and my other colleagues from the Bay Area to help salute the all-time great San Francisco 49ers.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me and commend him for his leadership in bringing this very reasonable amendment to this legislation to the floor. Indeed, the gentleman from California, [Mr. Condit] deserves a great deal of credit for his leadership in subjecting this legislation and the mandates, the unfunded mandates to the scrutiny which they are receiving by this House of Representatives. And he has a chance for us to give him exactly what he wants, a stronger unfunded mandate bill. Stronger because it protects the rights of children. It makes children a first priority. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Clinger] in his remarks contended that he rose in opposition to this amendment ``for the same reason as I have opposed all the others,'' the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Clinger] said, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania. He said, it should not be exempt anymore, the children in the work place should not be exempt any more than any other amendment should be exempted. I say children should be our first priority. Let me read Members what this amendment says. The amendment says, and I read from the bill so they see where it fits in, ``this act shall not or final Federal regulation that is necessary to protect children from exploitation in the work place.'' ``That is necessary to protect children from exploitation in the work place.'' This is not preferred, better, this or that, is necessary to protect children in the work place. So, my colleagues, I urge support for the Becerra amendment, because exploitation of children in the work place is a real and present danger in our country. We, the United States of America, should be the leader on this issue. Indeed, the Governors themselves asked for Federal child labor protection laws. That is how they got on the books in the first place. Child labor violations have been on the rise in our country each year. Work related injuries to children cause more than 100 deaths and 20,000 compensation claims. Children often skip school to work 12 hours a day as migrant farm workers or in sweatshops. Since 1983, there has been a 150 percent increase in reported child labor violations. The unfunded mandate legislation takes away the mechanism for regulating and prohibiting these violations. The amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] does indeed strengthen the legislation of the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] the unfunded mandate bill. It does indeed improve it, because it says, no, when it is necessary, as the amendment says, to protect children from exploitation in the workplace, then we the Congress of the United States will not, will not prohibit that from happening. In the course of this debate on unfunded mandates there has been a great deal of discussion about the impact on children. And really, it is just always great to hear the Members rise to their feet to protect children in this body. But this one should not even be a debate because this legislation calls for what is necessary. It has been requested originally by the Governors. It would improve the legislation. I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] for offering it.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted this amendment for the consideration of our colleagues because I think it is very important. Even though the hour is late, and the debate has gone on a long time, and indeed, we have even addressed the minimum wage in the course of debating some other amendments en bloc, I think it is very important that the House speak to this issue. What my amendment does, and I will read it, it says ``This act shall not apply to any provision in a Federal statute or proposed for final Federal regulation that establishes a minimum wage.'' That is what the amendment is. The purpose of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to remove all doubt from where we go from here in establishing a minimum wage. I will not go into, because the hour is late, all the reasons why we need an increase in the minimum wage and how low the purchasing power is. However, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for Members to know that if this amendment does not pass, a situation will exist that includes the following. Mr. Chairman, just to reiterate for a moment the purpose of this amendment, what this amendment does is to say that unfunded mandate legislation will not affect the establishment of a minimum wage. The purpose of the amendment is to remove all doubt that when this body addresses the subject of an increase in the minimum wage, there will not be an additional barrier to increasing that minimum wage. If this legislation, the unfunded mandate legislation, passes without this amendment, the following situation will prevail: When we come to the floor with an increase in the minimum wage, it will be necessary for us to have a point of order called on the bill. We would have to have a majority to override the point of order, and therefore throw up a higher bar for an increase in the minimum wage. Mr. Chairman, we are sent here to make tough decisions about how we legislate. We are not sent here to hide behind process. The simple fact of the matter is that without this amendment, if the unfunded mandate legislation wins, which it appears to do, we can count; and if we strive to increase the minimum wage on this floor, and we do not win on the point of order, and so far we have not had the votes to win on any of them, then the Federal Government cannot increase the minimum wage unless the Federal Government pays for the entire increase in the minimum wage, because it most certainly will exceed $50 million, point No. 1. Point No. 2 is that this is an intergovernmental mandate. That would mean that what I just described would apply to the public sector, but the private sector would not be affected by the legislation, so it would differentiate between the public and private sector, giving an increased burden to the private sector, something I do not think any of our colleagues want to do. So, Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is very important because it says in order to increase the minimum wage: First, we do not have the additional barrier of a point of order vote requiring a majority; and, second, we do not assume all of the cost of the increase in that minimum wage. The working poor in our country deserve this opportunity. The minimum wage, people working full time, they make less than $9,000 a year. We are all familiar with those figures. I just bring them to the floor to once again demonstrate: A, how necessary it is to raise the minimum wage; B, to not throw up any further obstacles to doing so; and, C, to not increase the cost to the Federal taxpayer for the increase in that minimum wage. Right now today States have that responsibility. Some States, as Members know, including the State of New Jersey, which was pointed out by Governor Whitman, have a minimum wage of $5.10 which they enforce. Therefore, why are we making it more difficult for the working poor in our country to earn a living wage by hiding behind process? The fact, Mr. Chairman, is that last week we voted for one of the mandates. Almost every Republican except the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], and every Democrat voted for the amendment addressing age discrimination, so we did exempt already one amendment that was presented. I am sorry that we could not say children are a priority, too, in addition to the elderly. I hope that the working poor will be given a fair shot by this body as well.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. It was in the interest of saving time that we rolled some of those amendments.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I said we had debated on this issue as part of an en bloc amendment before. We did not vote on this particular minimum wage amendment alone, because I believe that there were Members in the body who did not want to support some of the other amendments.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today we will vote on some version of the balanced budget amendment. I rise in opposition to it, and I do so because I think that there is still the great unanswered question: Will this balanced budget amendment exclude Social Security? If it does, why not say so? We have an opportunity today on the floor to support the Gephardt- Bonior amendment which our Republican colleagues could join us in if they in fact wish to exclude Social Security. And if not Social Security, then what? Disclose. Let us have truth in budgeting. We have an opportunity today to support the Conyers amendment if, indeed, we want to be truthful and honest with the American people. We have reason to be doubtful about the Republicans' intention about Social Security because of what they say. My colleagues have pointed out this article written by Speaker Gingrich which says, ``Replace Social Security picture of a Social Security card being cut by scissors. Perhaps my colleagues on the Republican side would like to read this, and as recently as last evening, a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means on this floor said in the debate, ``We cannot ask our children to support a growing number of seniors who live 20 and 30 years past retirement.'' The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] said that. If you do, in fact, wish to exclude Social Security, vote to do so.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding time to me, and for his leadership on his amendment, which I will address in my remarks. Mr. Chairman, I rise with the greatest respect for the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], and in strong opposition to his amendment. I object legislation, but after carefully listening to the debate, I have concluded that while being a strong proponent for reducing the deficit, I do not believe that we should amend our Constitution to do so. Mr. Chairman, as I was listening to the debate, I thought it might be useful to once again review, and we just made this quickly in our office, so this is not a very fancy chart, but just to call to the attention of our colleagues once again some of the facts regarding our budget. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, we take in each year more money than we spend in our budget, except for the net interest on our national debt. The projected deficit for this year is $167 billion. The net interest on our national debt this year is $235 billion. We have taken in $68 million more than we spend each year, except for the interest on the national debt. That is a great big exception. My colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], referenced that families cannot live within the limits if they have to pay for their house in one year, or their car, et cetera, but we cannot even deduct this interest from our taxes. This is the price we are paying for the failed trickle down policies. Let us not make that mistake again in the contract. That is a little bit of a separate issue from the balanced budget amendment. Mr. Chairman, our other distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr], mentioned that it would be like the 49ers giving the play book to the Chargers for this Congress, this majority, to show what cuts they would make, we would make, to the American people before we approve balanced budget amendment. I think that is one, with all due respect to the gentleman, one sports analogy too far. The Chargers should not see the 49er play book. The public has a right to know what the cuts will be, so if it is true that Social Security is not to be cut, why not support the Gephardt- Bonior amendment? If Members believe that the American people have a right to know, then why not support the Conyers amendment, which makes all the sense in the world?

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

Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, although we take pride in San Francisco of the 49ers being a gentlemanly team, when we talk about football it is a tough game, and I do not think we should play hardball with the American people. I think they have a right to know. We should support the Conyers amendment, and in addition to that, if we are serious about balancing the budget and reducing the deficit, we had better get serious about real health care reform, so that we can reduce the increase in health care expenditures that are the rising cost of our deficit in our national budget. But let us just remember once again, we take in more than we spend except for the price tag on the failed trickle-down economics.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] to protect the children. I support the Maloney amendment because it makes children a national priority. Listening to the debate yesterday and today, we have had a number of initiatives which have addressed children and the priority we give them in our society. And let us just say right out that I think we can all agree and stipulate that every single Member of this body on both sides of the aisle So this is not about what we care about. It is how we make decisions and come down on the side of supporting children. We have often heard quoted in this body and in our country the famous statement of President Kennedy that child are our greatest resource and our best hope for the future. They are, indeed. And so it is not only about the compassion and the love and care we feel for children that this amendment is important, but it is about our country that this amendment is important to the future of our country, as President Kennedy so eloquently stated. None of us would be here and our country would not be the great country that it is today, if generations before us did not decide in favor of future preference, that we will say that our highest priority is the next generation, that we spend and invest in our children as our families each did, that we in this society have done and that we must continue to do. Mr. Chairman, while I supported the Clean Air Act amendment, the clean water, safe drinking water, et cetera, because they are all very important, and in fact, very important to the children of our country, I believe I can say without any hesitation the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] today is the most important amendment that we will have to deal with in this unfunded mandates legislation, because it says that the first dollar we spend should be on children. Yes, we all have sympathy for the localities, the Democratic Governors and Republican Governors and mayors, but all levels of government must share in the responsibility for preparing our children for their futures and investing in their health and well-being. Every level of government has that strong responsibility. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] should take precedence over everything else in the bill, all the exemptions that are already listed and any other consideration that the Governors and the mayors may present, because it says who we are as a society, that we believe in future preference, that we understand that we have a responsibility to these children, and that we understand that our country depends on us honoring that responsibility. Mr. Chairman, other countries have social programs that are different from here and they provide a great deal more for children right off the bat, without any question, and no debate. We have the debate on this issue. They will be watching what we do. The country will be watching what we do here today. More importantly, Mr. Chairman, the children are listening. The children are listening. Let there be no doubt in their minds about their importance as individuals and their importance as resources to the future of our country. Mr. Chairman, our colleagues on the Republican side have the votes. They may win this vote today and defeat the Maloney amendment, although I hope not, because as I say, I recognize and respect the regard and concern that they have for children as well. They may win the vote, but they must not win the debate about what is the most important resource to our country and what should be the very first dollar that we spend. I have repeated that a couple of times, Mr. Chairman, because I want to reinforce and make the point. Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Subcommittee on Labor-Health and Human Services-Education of the Committee on Appropriations. We certainly do not do enough for the children of our country. We jokingly say it is a committee where it is, lamb eat lamb, because every single program is very important to the children of our country. We do not have enough money to spread around. Therefore, we must say that as much as we possibly can will be spent on the children at the national, at the State, and at the local levels. That is why this amendment is so important, because it says in recognition of the fact that unfunded mandates may be a problem to them, and in recognition that resources are limited, in recognition of all of that, children come first.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Skaggs amendment, which I believe is a necessary improvement to H.R. 5. While I am sensitive to the burdens that Federal legislation may impose on State and local governments, I believe that the responsibility which is borne by all levels of government to protect the environment, defend worker safety, prevent worker discrimination, and secure basic rights for all citizens is paramount and must be met by our government. As I listened to our colleagues debate this legislation and the various amendments to it, it sounds as if what some people would like to see is unmandated funding, rather than unfunded mandates, so I think we have to have more balance than H.R. 5 presents. I commend the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] for bringing this important issue to the floor, which would restrict the scope of H.R. 5 in terms of the Clean Air Act. Last week, sadly, this body rejected amendments from the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns] which would have restricted the scope of H.R. 5 in terms of the interstate ramifications for the public health and safety of residents in other States. I think this was unfortunate, because those amendments, like those of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] today I think were necessary improvements to the legislation. In our clamor to get Government off our backs, we risk a great loss, the loss of environmental protection that we have struggled for decades to ensure. We hailed the industrial revolution and later the arrival of dramatic new technology as great advances in our civilization. However, with this progress came the realization we were risking massive depletion of the resources responsible for our success. In reaction to this, the Federal Government sought to strengthen our environmental laws, so that future generations would not inherit a crippling environmental debt that threatened their security and their lives. Today in our 100-day stampede we are putting at risk the fundamental environmental protection laws we struggled, as I mentioned before, for decades to bring about. The Federal Government, in its direction to the States, has provided the continuity necessary for our environmental laws. A national problem deserves a national plan. Our States do not exist autonomously. They are State united by common, often overlapping, problems and national solutions. Many of my colleagues, and most recently the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green] pointed out that pollution, et cetera, knows no geographic boundary. On December 21 the results of a national poll and voter attitudes towards environmental protection were released. They showed that by over 2 to 1 the American public believed the current environmental protection laws do not go far enough, as opposed to 18 percent who believe that the laws go too far. Even the voters who voted for Republican congressional candidates indicated that they do not want environmental laws rolled back. In explaining this poll, the National Wildlife Federation stated ``The poll demonstrates that when the American people voted for change in the congressional leadership in last month's election, they did not endorse an attack on 25 years of environmental protection.'' I heard my colleagues talk earlier about many ideas which I associate myself with, which I have concerns about in H.R. 5. The gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] talked about the judicial review, and I know we will be getting around to that later, but I also want to associate myself with his remarks in that regard. Others of our colleagues have talked about measuring the amount of money, assessing the amount of money that this legislation, the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], would cost. It is impossible for us to talk about money and the environment without understanding how costly it will be for us not to protect the environment. The need to clean up pollution and mitigate other environmental problems should translate into a backlash against the pollution, not against the programs implemented to clean them up. The direct costs of mitigating pollution reflect only part of the price society must pay for environmental degradation. Environemntal problems impose significant costs on society: disease and death, lower fishing yields, reduced recreational activities, loss of jobs, and the list goes on. Toxics and pollution pose a major threat to human health. Pollution has been linked to chronic respiratory problems, cancer, and even birth defects. In addition, numerous studies have shown that environmental damage can significantly harm the Nation's economic performance. The debate today is not about relieving States of an unnecessary burden. It is about dismantling environmental laws that protect the health of our Nation's citizens. Federal mandates serve an important purpose in motivating States to perform responsibly, as parts of the whole, and with the same requirements we have for the private sector. Without these mandates to ensure environmental protection, the health and lives of our future generations of Americans will be at risk. Once again, I urge my colleagues to support the Skaggs amendment, at least all of our colleagues who would like to breathe clean air.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, my district in San Francisco, indeed the entire State of California, is blessed with a very large Japanese- American population. On behalf of my constituents, the Japanese- Americans, and indeed all of them, I rise today to extend my sympathies to the people of Japan now that we are in day 7 of the tragedy that struck Kobe last week. As you know, last Tuesday Japan was struck by the deadliest quake in more than 70 years. Today's AP wire has an update on some of the tragic statistics. The death toll is topping 5,000, with more than 100 people still listed as missing. More than 26,00 people were injured, 300,000 people were left homeless, and 56,000 buildings were damaged or destroyed. There are 1,000 relief centers trying to house the 300,000 people left homeless. Indeed 2 million survivors of the earthquake in that area have been impacted very negatively as well. Mr. Speaker, today, Monday in Japan almost yesterday now, there have been strong aftershocks in buildings in Japan. They had three aftershocks at about 4.0, and I have been told aftershocks of up to 6 points on the Richter scale are possible. In addition to that, there is the physical toll, in addition the personal toll. Japan has different construction standards for highways and for buildings. The huge pillars supporting raised roads consisted of concrete cores surrounded by vertical steel rods that are then wrapped with vertical steel hoops and surrounded by another coat of concrete. Mr. Speaker, just as a sign of how fierce this earthquake was in Kobe, many of the structures ruptured and the reinforcing rods snapped like matchsticks. The economic toll is great. Kobe is a major manufacturing center, the country's busiest container shipping port and an important transportation hub for moving component parts to factories throughout Japan and abroad. That is having a tremendous impact on the economy there. Estimates of the economic impact vary widely. The Transport Ministry estimated it would cost $4.12 billion to repair damaged railway lines and stations alone. The head of the Japanese Chamber of Commerce estimated the overall cost of the quake would amount to more than $100 billion. Of course, these are staggering statistics, but the worst of all is, of course, the personal toll. Today's AP wire carries a story about a father who lost his daughter in the earthquake. He says, ``My daughter's voice, `Dad, dad, please help me,' sticks in my ear.'' He lost his teenage daughter when their house collapsed. ``It just doesn't go away,'' he said. ``I just couldn't save her.'' Mr. Speaker, that is just one of many, many similar stories. Another, of a young man whose house collapsed, his mother was in the house. The neighbors and others decided to help where they heard voices, and they were able to save the lives of some. But since they heard no sounds coming from his house, that did not become a priority, and his mother-- he said, ``I wanted to save my mother, but was not able to.'' The list of these stories goes on and on. So. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow--of course, in our area, Mr. Speaker, we had the experience 5 years ago of the Loma Prieta earthquake in San Francisco, and just eerily, just 1 year before this earthquake, the Northridge earthquake shook Los Angeles. So we all have our own memories of personal devastation and personal loss from earthquakes. That is why we have so much sympathy for those in Japan. It is with great sorrow I convey on behalf my constituents, both Japanese-Americans and others as well, to the Japanese ambassador the condolences of the people of San Francisco and wish for him to convey our condolences to the people of Japan, especially those affected by the earthquake, but to all the people of that area. They must be assured that they are in our prayers.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, later this week the House will be voting on a Republican balanced budget amendment which does contain a three-fifths supermajority requirement but does not contain any listing of the cuts necessary to balance the budget. Members of Congress are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. The Congress and the American people need disclosure, and the Republicans have been unwilling, or unable, to list the cuts that will be required. Without the facts, the American people support the balanced budget amendment 4 to 1, until they learn that Social Security, Medicare, education, et cetera, may be cut. Then the amendment is opposed 2 to 1. Mr. Speaker, if indeed our Republican colleagues do not intend to cut Social Security, why did they defeat the amendment to build a constitutional wall between Social Security and the rest of the budget? Why did they defeat the amendment to disclose a balanced budget blueprint before sending the balanced budget amendment to the States? It is clear that the American people need full disclosure of the cuts in the Republican balanced budget. They should not be handed a pig or a piglet in a poke.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my continued support for S. 2, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, which was overwhelmingly passed by the House of Representatives on January 17, 1995. As the Record indicates, I have supported this legislation twice before. I supported passage of the Congressional Accountability Act when it was considered by the House in the 103d Congress, on August 10, 1994, and then again when the House approved the measure on January 5, 1995. Accordingly, had I not been detained in my district on January 17, 1995, I would have voted ``yea'' during the vote on S. 2.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Congress the work of an extraordinary couple, Chiune and Yukiko Sugihara, who against their own government and amid a sea of hostility, saved the lives of thousands of Jewish men, women, and children from the horrors of the Holocaust. Together, they will be remembered, as Raoul Wallenberg and Oskar Schindler are, for their isolated acts of defiance and extraordinary courage and resistance against the Nazi horrors. In the summer of 1940, Chiune Sugihara, a minor official in Japan's Foreign Ministry, was stationed in the Japanese Consulate in Kaunas, Lithuania. After the Nazi blitzkreig of Poland, thousands of Jewish refugees fled to that tiny country. In Kaunas, rumors began that the Consulate was issuing transit visas, and crowds of hopeful applicants gathered outside the consulate gates. At this time, it is unclear what the Sugiharas were feeling. According to the Holocaust Oral History Project, it is possible that Sugihara was introduced to the brutality of the Nazi regime and to the plight of the Jewish refugees in Lithuania after befriending a young Jewish boy, named Solly Ganor, who had gone to the consulate asking for stamps. Whatever the motivation, the need for action, in the Sugiharas' mind, was clear: without action, many of the Jewish refugees would die. Chiune Sugihara cabled his government three times, asking permission to grant visas. Each time, permission was denied. After consulting with his wife, Sugihara simply chose to issue the visas on his own authority. His wife recollects: ``He told me, `Yukiko', I'm going to issue the visas. I'm going to go against the Foreign Ministry. On this, my husband and I were one.'' The record of his actions is undeniable: the records of the Japanese Foreign Ministry show that Sugihara issued 2,139 visas in the time between July 9 and August 31, 1940. Each visa was for a household, and it is estimated that between 6 to 10 thousand people may have received passage out of the path of the darkness befalling other Jewish populations throughout Europe. Those who received the precious paper left Lithuania by way of the Trans-Siberian Railway, then by ship to Japan, where most stayed only briefly before leaving, via China, to other destinations. When the Soviets invaded Lithuania, all the consulates were ordered closed, yet Sugihara obtained an extension to continue his work. He issued visas from a nearby hotel. His wife massaged his hands to enable him to continue writing each handwritten visa. Even as he and his wife were finally forced to leave Kaunas, wife remembers: ``Even as the train started going, he continued writing, leaning out of the window. Finally, he said `Forgive me. I cannot write any more. I pray for your good luck.' People started to run alongside the train, and one of them shouted, `Sugihara, we will not forget about you. We are going to see you again.''' It was not until 1968, however, before this would happen. After the war, he was fired from his post with the Foreign Ministry, and worked at odd jobs before working in Moscow for a Japanese trading company. Finally, he was tracked down by one of the refugees whose life he had saved. Finally, nearly 30 years later, he was honored in Israel as a righteous gentile, an honor bestowed upon those who had worked to save Jews from the Holocaust. Though Sugihara died in 1986, his wife, Yukiko, has been honored in Japan by Jewish-Americans who benefitted from his visas, as well as by surviving members of the famed Japanese- American combat battalions who liberated Dachau and, finally, by the Japanese Government. On Sunday, January 22, Yukiko Sugihara will be honored in San Francisco for the bravery, compassion, and humanity exhibited by her and her husband. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to truly express the legacy of the Sugiharas. But the best legacy cannot be expressed in words, but seen in their good works: the lives of the people they saved. Their continued presence, and their families' presence, gives inspiration and hope to future generations of humanity.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 5, the legislation regarding unfunded mandates. I believe this is necessary for us to defeat this legislation because it gives benefits to all Americans. These Federal mandates give benefits to all Americans. Included in these Federal mandates is the Clean Water Act, which is important for us as far as the food we eat, the water we drink, and to millions of Americans whose livelihood depends on working on the waterways in America. In addition, the Safe Water Act protects the water we drink from the tap. And in addition to that, the Clean Air Act protects the health of every American who lives in the cities. But as we know, pollution knows no geographic bounds. So it is very important for us to have national minimum standards. This is very important for every American, at least every American who eats food, drinks water, and breathes air. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. with two shining examples of his legacy in San Francisco. One represents the closing of an era; the other, the limitless possibilities with its opening. This month, San Francisco will bid a fond farewell to Lulann Sapp McGriff, who is retiring after more than two decades of service to the NAACP in the bay area. Lulann has been a tireless champion of freedom and opportunity for African-Americans and other people of color in San Francisco and the entire Western United States for nearly two decades. She has held these positions within the NAACP during that time: Assistant western regional director; NAACP California State conference sectional coordinator; State educational chair; and an unprecedented four terms as San Francisco NAACP branch president. A social worker and educator, Lulann works in the City College of San Francisco as a counselor, and through her efforts has established African-American male and female retention programs for high school students in the San Francisco Unified School District. She has been a powerful force in enforcing the court orders which desegregated public schools on the west coast. She has been, and will continue to be, a shining model of civic and community service to our Nation. But while Lulann's tenure as San Francisco NAACP president comes to a close, San Francisco witnesses the dawning of another era with the opening of the Thurgood Marshall Academic High School. Mr. Speaker, I was given the privilege of participating at the dedication of the school, where we were graced by the presence of Justice Marshall's family, including his widow, Cecilia. This school, located in the Bayview-Hunters Point district of San Francisco, offers a rigorous and innovative academic program targeted at low-income, minority students. The San Francisco Chronicle wrote, ``there is a sense of enthusiasm and optimism among the students, many from poor neighborhoods who feel they are pioneers in a bold and interesting educational adventure.'' This school, by stressing educational enrichment for all students, does honor to the legacy of Thurgood Marshall. Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will join in celebrations throughout the country to honor the life and work of the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We best honor his legacy, however, through deeds which seek to advance and uplift the human spirit and create opportunity for all Americans, regardless of race, color or creed. Lulann McGriff and the Thurgood Marshall Academic High School, through their work on behalf of the education and advancement of young people, are living testaments to Dr. King's memory.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposed House rule to impose a supermajority--60 percent of Members voting-- requirement for tax rate increases. I believe this proposed rule is inconsistent with the oath we took earlier today to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution clearly states that decisions of the Congress are to be based on majority rule. This proposed House rule is in clear violation of the constitutional principle of majority rule which is at the core of our democracy. Mr. Speaker, this Congress will consider fundamental issues about taxing and spending. Such decisions are the central responsibility of a democratically elected Congress. This proposed rule is designed to stack the deck against tax increases for the wealthiest Americans while at the same time imposing no such requirement for increased user fees or excise taxes, which disproportionately affect low and middle income Americans. As a result, progressive taxation would require a supermajority while regressive taxation would not. The Republican Party has a long history of acting to protect the wealthiest Americans at the expense of average Americans. This proposal is Republican business as usual. Williams College, Williamstown, MA, January 3, 1995. Hon. Newt Gingrich, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Gingrich: As a fellow historian and political scientist, may I urge you not to go ahead with the proposal to amend rules to require a three-fifths vote to increase income tax rates. As a matter of principle, majority rule lies at the heart of our democracy. It is the most representative process; and departure from it grants authority to a minority--the antithesis of democratic society. As a matter of practicality it is the most representative process that also permits decisive action, under a two-party system. As a matter of propriety, bypassing majority rule would set a precedent for any minority to hold the majority hostage-- today on tax hikes, tomorrow on economy bills, etc. It is dangerous for one side to use an improper weapon against the other side, encouraging each side to use it in the future, to the detriment of the general welfare. Sincerely, James Macgregor Burns, Woodrow Wilson Professor of Government, Emeritus.