Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Pitts amendment. First I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for the strong, and effective bipartisan bill they produced in the Committee on International Relations. I also want to acknowledge the tireless efforts of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who has fought for years to strengthen our efforts in the fight against the AIDS pandemic, both domestically and internationally. We know the statistics. They are staggering, and they should move us to action. Every day, over 16,000 people become infected with HIV, primarily in the developing world. This crisis is too severe and our response is too important to let our efforts be undermined by politics. We must support what works. We are talking about saving lives. If we do, experts say that a strong global response could prevent nearly two- thirds of the 45 million new infections that are projected by 2020, saving tens of millions of lives. The successes are there for us to replicate. We can look to Uganda as a model and for inspiration. We can learn a lot from their experience. Over the past decade, Uganda's infection rates have dropped from 30 percent to 5 percent. It can be done. This success was achieved using the model of prevention that is a key component of the Hyde-Lantos bill, a model that gives equal weight to the full range of options and relies on the best scientific information. H.R. 1298 is not anti-abstinence. It supports a balanced approach to HIV-AIDS prevention. This is a debate about whether or not we use the model that has been effective in Uganda and that gives flexibility to those fighting this disease on the ground. In July 2001, NIH confirmed the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission. The Pitts amendment asks us to abandon what we know and has been proven to work. H.R. 1298 is a bipartisan bill that we can all proudly support. It is a bill that President Bush supports. Why sacrifice that broad support in the name of politics, especially when so many lives are at stake? Keeping information from people does not keep them safe. And when that information is about AIDS, it can be a death sentence. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Pitts amendment and to support the original Hyde-Lantos bill, and again commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman, the very distinguished chairman, the about-to-have-his-picture-unveiled chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their very important contribution to saving lives.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, twenty years ago today, our Nation lost a fierce and fearless leader--Phillip Burton, a great Member of Congress from San Francisco. Sometimes profound, often profane, but always passionate, Phillip Burton was a voice for workers, the poor, the elderly, the disabled and a protector of the environment. He turned up the volume of those who could only whisper for help. Through his work, the world has been endowed with a lasting legacy of gifts--the giant Redwoods, benefits for black lung sufferers, better wages for workers, and better healthcare for the elderly and the disabled. Phil Burton believed deeply in the integrity of this institution and its democratic principles of disagreement and debate. One of his first areas of interest was the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities and its destructive use of this House to undermine the principles for which it stood. He worked successfully to abolish the Committee. Expanding on the openness and fairness he desired for the House of Representatives, he worked to ensure meaningful reforms in the House so that junior Members were given early opportunities to share more equally in the workings of the committees. Phil Burton was a legislative master, creating new park lands and protecting lands throughout the country--literally ``from California to the New York island; from the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters.'' The Washington Post ran the headline about his work: ``Sun Never Sets on Burton Empire.'' In 1978, Phil Burton championed the most sweeping environmental legislation ever to pass the Congress, tripling the National Trails System, doubling the Wild and Scenic Rivers System and more than doubling the wilderness in national parks. He and the chairman of the Interior Committee, Mo Udall, worked together to protect 100 million acres of land in Alaska, the largest in the nation. Mo Udall's classic description of Phil says it all: ``He unscrewed the inscrutable.'' He preserved America's natural wonders. Among Phil's great successes was creation of the nation's first two urban national parks--the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San Francisco and Gateway National Recreation Area in New York. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area has become an emerald greenbelt stretching north and south of San Francisco along the Pacific coast. The jewel at its center is the Presidio. Phil Burton, with one sentence, made it possible for the Presidio to exist as a national park. Years later, Congress created a permanent management entity, the Presidio Trust, to ensure that the Presidio would be preserved in perpetuity as Phil intended. The ``empire'' stretched beyond our continental lands to the Territories where Phil sought to bring fairness, cultural harmony and the American Dream to island populations. And he brought them representation in Congress. Congressman Eni Faleomavaega, who staffed the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs chaired by Phil Burton, is a Member of Congress today because of legislation authored by Phil to ensure representation to the people of America's distant lands. Phil's mastery extended beyond the legislative arena, and his true artistry was displayed when it came to redistricting. One press account described it as ``Phil Burton's contribution to modern art.'' For almost three decades, he painted the political landscape of Californians in the House from his palette. Always central to Phil's success was a strong sense of bipartisanship, which he considered essential. This was evident in his efforts to preserve lands in districts where they formed an economic spine for local communities. By providing worker benefits and working with Republicans and Democrats, success was possible that benefited not only the short-term existence of a community, but the longer-term preservation of the environment. In all of his work, he put the public interest above self-interest, including the self-interests of those who preferred to realize financial gain. Phil Burton's career took a detour on the road to become Speaker. When Phil lost the race for Majority Leader, Speaker Tip O'Neill said, ``I never saw a person take defeat so gracefully . . .'' He may have lost the personal battle for Majority Leader, but he was victorious in his broad war to ensure social justice and human dignity for all people. Phil Burton worked every day of his life to protect this planet, its people and this place where we govern. He was not a man of shallow interest, but a man of deep and abiding commitment to democratic principles. In his short life, he brought our nation a legacy of accomplishment that will outlast our lifetimes and those of our grandchildren. As enduring and tangible as the monuments he left to us will be our abiding commitment to the principles he held in his heart. Years from now, these generations will not know his name, but they will experience his monumental achievements. Phil Burton stands as tall as a giant among us and as lasting as the great Redwoods.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, today we should be bringing to the American people an energy policy that is worthy of the 21st century. A policy that sets us on a path toward reliable sources and supplies of energy, and a cleaner environment. A policy that promotes efficiency and innovation, and provides more protection for consumers. But the bill the Administration and the Republican leaders have brought to the Floor looks backward and not forward. The Republican bill authorizes drilling in the most fragile untouched wilderness of the Arctic in search of a six-month supply of oil that won't reach the market for another 10 years. The Republican bill makes our air less healthy and our water more dirty. It jeopardizes the health of our children. It allows companies to force diesel fuel into the ground in a way that could threaten the water table in order to fracture and retrieve oil deposits. It jeopardizes the protection of rivers and fish on behalf of hydroelectric companies. The Republican bill allows oil and gas development on sensitive coastal lands and exempts oil and gas drilling sites from water pollution requirements. It includes a variety of taxpayer handouts to oil and gas companies, and protects corporate expatriates that have already moved overseas by grandfathering in their tax breaks. And most significantly to those of us from California, this Republican bill strips out some of the few remaining federal protections for electricity consumers. In its place, we would be given a new, untested approach to electricity markets. I have a word of warning for my colleagues: ``Remember California.'' At first, our new competitive electricity market was hailed as a boon for consumers. Then came the price spikes and the blackouts, as energy companies learned how to game the system. On two particular days in June of 2000, an energy company shut down power plants to drive up electricity prices. These two days, alone, cost wholesale energy buyers at least an extra $13.8 million. Federal regulators stood by and watched as Californians paid and overpaid to keep the lights on. And we are still paying, and we will continue to pay for years to come. Finally, just last month, federal regulators announced that 37 energy companies and utilities violated energy trading rules. There will be more indictments and admissions related to manipulative practices in California. But most of the money is gone, never to be recovered. And yet, the energy policy the Republicans are bringing forward today will leave consumer all over the country even more vulnerable to the fraudulent and manipulative practices that led to the rolling brownouts and unreasonable prices we experienced in California. It repeals an essential federal consumer protection that limits concentration of market power within the utility sector and helps protect ratepayers from the risky investments of the electrical utilities that serve them. One of the laws repealed is more crucial today than ever to protect consumers from abuses in the utility industry. It is the law that prevents Enron from owning, and abusing, more than one electric utility. Just imagine what would happen if Enron had owned and used two utilities to manipulate prices two years ago. This is why it is important to vote for the Dingell amendment which would allow us to retain critical consumer protections and provide the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission broader authority to act against fraud in both electricity and natural gas markets. Mr. Speaker, the energy policy in this bill is not worthy of the 21st century. It is a policy mired in the past that offers the American people more of the same bad choices--fewer consumer protections, and greater jeopardy for public health and the environment. It is a policy that will lead to greater pollution of our lakes, our rivers, the air that we breathe and the water that we drink. And, of course, the budget-busting title full of corporate giveaways to oil and gas companies--at the end of the day--will not yield the energy independence we seek for our future. We can do better. We can look forward to 2050 instead of backward to 1950. We can bring to the Floor an energy policy that looks toward investment for new technologies, better efficiency standards and conservation policies that will truly lead us down the path to energy independence. I urge my colleagues to have the vision to vote against this bill that takes us back to the past. Vote for the Democratic amendments that will take us into a secure and independent energy future.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I invite all of my colleagues to recognize the extraordinary leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for presenting a budget to this House that is a statement of our national values. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, earlier today we gathered in Statuary Hall to honor our men and women in uniform and their families. In doing so, we were reminded of our own mission, to build a future for our country worthy of their sacrifice, to build a future for their children and all children worthy of those children. To build a future worthy of them, we need a budget which is a statement of our national values. Instead, tonight we have a budget before us which is a national disgrace. We need a budget resolution which is a blueprint for investing in our children and for job creation. Instead, we have a road map to economic disaster. Instead of investing in our children, we are making them indebted. We are mortgaging their futures for a tax break which benefits those who need it least, the wealthiest in our country. It is no wonder that the Republicans want to bring this budget to the floor in the dark of night. It is 2 o'clock in the morning, just 11 o'clock in California, so hopefully people there will hear about this budget, that the Republicans do not want the American people to know. They do not want them to know, for example, that while we honor our men and women in uniform, we are also tonight cutting their benefits by $6.2 billion. They do not want the American people to see their charts, which will show, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) indicated, that by the year 2013 they will double the national debt to $12 trillion. This is at a time where the Bush economic failed policies have taken us to consumer confidence being very low, retail sales moving at the lowest rate in a decade, and factory orders and manufacturing are down. The economic indicators are dismal. And the reaction of the Republicans? They offer more of their warmed-over stew: Tax cuts which benefit the wealthy. Under President Bush, our country has lost 2.5 million jobs, the worst record of job creation since the depression. Under President Clinton, 22 million jobs were created, largely because of the sound fiscal policy that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) referenced in the budget vote that only Democrats supported. This Republican plan will cause more job loss. Job loss for American workers to give tax breaks to America's wealthiest. It simply is not fair. Not only is the Republican budget not fair, it is fiscally irresponsible. I ask you, my colleagues, where have all the budget deficit hawks gone? I ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), are they an endangered species? It seems they are. The tax cuts in this budget, again, will double the national debt in the life of this budget to $12 trillion. It bears repetition. How old will your children be in 10 years? Do you want to weigh their futures down with huge debt? The interest on the debt alone in the life of this budget, the interest on the debt alone in the out years will exceed all discretionary domestic spending. We will pay more interest on the debt to pay for this reckless tax cut than we will spend on investing in education, than we will invest in protecting the environment, transportation, infrastructure, which grows our economy and protects our environment, and housing. The list goes on and on. Head Start, investments in our children, all of that investment will be exceeded by interest on the national debt. What a tragedy. Those big deficits will raise interest rates and have a negative impact on our economy. The President's and the Republican's tax plan irresponsibly piles up debt and makes a bad economy worse. But do not take my word for it. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said recently that there is no question that as deficits go up, contrary to what has been said, it does affect long-term interest rates. It does have a negative impact on the economy. The Congressional Budget Office just last week said the overall macroeconomic effect of the proposals in the President's budget is not obvious. The office went on to say that the downturn in investment that will result from this plan will be a drag on the economy. More than 400 economists, including 10 Nobel Laureates said, ``Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long term budget outlook, adding to the Nation's projected chronic deficits.'' Finally, the report by the Committee for Economic Development, a blue-ribbon organization of corporate CEOs stated, ``The budget deficits, the President's plan, would be akin to `arsenic poisoning' for the economy.'' A vote for this budget is a vote for arsenic poisoning for the economy. If that would not be enough, just yesterday, the IMF sharply rebuked the Bush and Republican budget proposal. And they said, ``Suppose for a moment we were talking about a developing country with a gaping trade deficit year after year as far as the eye can see, a budget spinning from black into red, open-ended security costs, and an exchange rate that has been inflated by capital inflows. With all of that, the IMF said, I think it is fair to say we would be pretty concerned if it were a developing nation.'' ``The United States,'' it went on to say, ``isn't a developing country but, nonetheless, for the global economy, the Bush tax cut is poor policy and ill-timed. Whether we are talking about job creation for America's families or lifting up the global economy, this is a very bad idea.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican's reckless, irresponsible budget, which explodes the deficit, does not create jobs, and dishonors our commitment to our children. Do the right thing. Vote no, no, no on the arsenic poisoning of our economy, the Republican budget.

Ms. PELOSI

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

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me this time, and if that is not pleasing to the distinguished chairman of the committee, I am pleased to yield to him first. If it is okay, then I will proceed. Madam Speaker, once again I wish to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his leadership on this important issue, important to America's workers. Today, we have an opportunity to do the right thing for America's aviation workers. Both the House and Senate versions of the supplemental appropriations bill include financial assistance for the airlines, as they should. Aviation is an essential cornerstone of the U.S. economy. Both the House and Senate bills focus primarily on mitigating for the cost of security provisions required by the Federal Government, as those bills should have that funding. But we cannot ignore the workers who form the backbone of the aviation industry. Madam Speaker, at least 150,000 workers in the aviation industry have lost their jobs since 9/11, including those who work for the airlines and related industries. Many of these workers have exhausted their unemployment benefits, and that was months ago. But with the industry still contracting, new jobs are impossible to find. Thousands more airline workers have lost their jobs since the Iraq war began and layoffs in the industry could reach 70,000 more. Concern about the exposure to the deadly SARS disease in Asia is now reducing air travel from the U.S. to Asia even further. The Senate has included $225 million for extended unemployment compensation for aviation workers. The House should recede to the Senate position. Madam Speaker, it is the least that we can do. I urge Members to vote for relief for aviation workers. To support the Obey motion to instruct conferees, vote for the motion to instruct.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, today the thoughts and prayers of all Americans are with our courageous military forces in Iraq and their brave families at home, especially those families who have lost a loved one or await the return of the missing and our prisoners of war. Today, we all celebrate the wonderful and courageous rescue of Jessica Lynch. We all celebrate her rescue and the courage that she demonstrated, as well as those who brought her home safely. As Members of Congress charged in the preamble to the Constitution with providing for the common defense, we have pledged to give our Armed Forces the support they need in these difficult and dangerous days, both to win this war and to win the peace. This supplemental abides by that commitment. Sadly, this supplemental does not fulfill America's commitment to our men and women in uniform at home, our local firefighters, police and emergency medical personnel who serve on the front lines against the greatest threat facing our Nation, the clear and present danger of terrorism. Time and time again, the President and the Republican majority in Congress have said that defending the homeland is ``the single most important priority, our most important challenge and our biggest responsibility.'' But time and time again, the rhetoric has failed to match the reality of their proposals. The reality is that the Republicans have failed to spend $2.5 billion in desperately needed homeland security funds appropriated by Congress last year. The Republicans have said repeatedly that they will do whatever it takes to defend our homeland, but the reality is that the Governors and mayors from across the country are pleading with the administration and the Republicans in Congress to give firefighters, police, and health care workers the funding, training and equipment they need to protect our communities and to respond to a terrorist attack. The President said that ``I am going to commit the resources necessary to defend our freedom,'' but the reality is that this supplemental has a message that the President and the Republicans have not been committing the resources necessary to fully defend our homeland. Perhaps nowhere is this credibility gap on homeland security greater than when it comes to protecting our vulnerable ports. In speaking to the Coast Guard at the port of Philadelphia this week, the President said that protecting our Nation's ports is essential to our economic security and to our national security, but the reality is that the President vetoed $39 million to inspect the millions of container ships that dock in U.S. ports every year. The reality is that the administration and the Republicans have no funding for this program in the fiscal 2004 budget or in this supplemental. With our Nation at the second-highest level of terrorist alert, the Republicans are shortchanging homeland security. The American people deserve better. We must do everything we can every day to protect the homes that people live in, the places where they work, the bridges and roads they use to get there, and the communities where they live. I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, for his outstanding leadership on this issue and for his efforts to give our States and communities the resources they need to protect themselves. America needs to know that Democrats voted this week to boost homeland security by $2.5 billion, including an additional $1.2 billion for underfunded firefighters, police and medical personnel. The Obey amendment, had it been allowed to be brought to the floor, would have gone even further than that, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership. Americans need to know that the Republicans voted no. The President and the Republicans owe the American people an explanation. Why are they shortchanging our men and women on the front lines in our homeland who protect our communities, while are they giving massive tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest in our country, those who need it least? This would be unwise at any time. In this time of war, with our Nation on high alert, it is downright reckless. Democrats support this supplemental because it funds our men and women in uniform in Iraq as well as other critical needs. At the same time, it does not do enough for our men and women in uniform domestically who are trying to keep our communities safe. Democrats will continue fighting to give them the funding, the training, and the equipment they need to protect America. We owe these men and women and the Americans they protect nothing less.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and I thank him for his tremendous leadership once again in putting forth a proposal that reflects the values of our country. Even the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, has to admit the gentleman is right on his motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to instruct the budget resolution conferees to reject some of the most harmful cuts in the Republican budget. Mr. Speaker, the Federal budget should be a statement of our shared national values. We should allocate our resources to those proposals and initiatives that are important to our country. The budget passed by the Republicans in the House certainly does not meet that standard. I am not even sure they understand what they passed in the House. But what we do know is that when the President sent his budget to Congress, we thought we had seen the worst of it. The Bush budget shortchanges veterans, seniors, children and the environment to pay for his tax cut. But the worst was yet to come. The House Republicans did the President's budget one better, or one worse as the case may be, and made even deeper cuts in education and issues relating to seniors. The difference is significant. President Bush's budget is not balanced. He pays for his tax cut by adding more than $2 trillion to the deficit. It is reckless and irresponsible. House Republicans have shown us that the only way they can pay for the President's reckless and irresponsible tax cut and balance the budget by 2012 is to slash veterans benefits, slash student loans, slash the school lunch program, and slash Medicaid. Slashing those priorities in order to give every millionaire in this country a $90,000 tax cut, that does not reflect our values. Americans value our veterans. We value education. We value access to quality health care. Passing a budget that cuts those priorities to pay for a huge tax cut that will not benefit most Americans is simply wrong. The Democratic motion instructs conferees to do the right thing. A vote for the Democratic motion is to reject the cuts to veterans benefits, education and health care currently in the bill passed by the Republicans. The announcement by the distinguished majority leader that he would accept the Spratt motion to instruct is an admission that the Republican budget is wrong. We must not shortchange the veterans who have so courageously defended our country and the thousands of future veterans who are risking their lives in Iraq as we speak. A vote for the Spratt amendment supports our veterans. It is ironic that on the same night that this House properly passed a resolution to honor the troops, the Republican majority passed this budget that dishonors the troops by making deep cuts in veterans benefits. The conferees should accept the other body's language that provides $14.6 billion more than the House Republican bill for veterans disability and education benefits. We must not shortchange students who rely on student loans and other education programs that expand opportunities and promote excellence. A vote for the Spratt motion to instruct expands opportunity and promotes excellence. It rejects $9 billion in cuts to student loans and the school lunch program. We must do the right thing for millions of seniors, children and disabled Americans who rely on Medicare for their health care coverage. We should accept the other body's language that rejects $94 billion in cuts in Medicaid. These cuts threaten access to nursing home care, hospital services and prescription drugs for some of our most vulnerable citizens. A vote for the Spratt motion to instruct would remove that threat from the budget. It is simply wrong to pass a budget that fails veterans, fails students, fails seniors, fails children and fails the disabled. The American people deserve better. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic motion to instruct.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to come to the Floor today with a bill I could recommend to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We had been working together, over the past few days, in serious negotiations over what would be required of a vaccine program in order for our nurses and first responders to feel secure enough to put their health, their lives, and their livelihoods on the line by taking a smallpox vaccination. There was progress on some features that are reflected in this bill. We are grateful for that. But unfortunately, those talks broke down last week and we find ourselves instead in a process that restricts our discussion of this issue and does not allow us to consider a Democratic alternative-- proposed by colleagues Lois Capps and Henry Waxman--that is based on the recommendations of the nurses, the firefighters, the police, the emergency medical technicians, and other first responders. They are being asked to step forward and take a vaccination that has the potential for dangerous side effects--including the possibility of death. Make no mistake about it. The votes that count are not the votes that we will cast here in this body. The votes that count are the votes of those men and women who are nurses, medical workers, firefighters, EMTs, police officers, and others who will go to the state health department and roll up their sleeves and take a risk to help improve the nation's prepareness against terrorist attack. These are not people who avoid risk. They take risks almost every day. You know who they are. They are the caregivers who tend to the sick, rescue the victims, and walk the streets to make us safer. They are the night-duty emergency room nurses who crawled through the rubble of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City to try to find someone--anyone--who was still alive. They are the firefighters who ran up the stairs instead of down the stairs in the World Trade Center to help the last of the people trapped in that horrific nightmare to escape. They are the police officers who walk the beat every day and who risk their lives to keep us safe. They are also mothers and fathers, caregivers for elderly parents, and breadwinners for their families. And they have a very human and understandable desire to protect their families in case something goes wrong. It is an unfortunate fact that some of the people who will take the smallpox vaccine will suffer serious adverse effects that could cause them to be unable to continue their current job, see their pay reduced or--if they were to become totally and permanently disabled--lose the ability to work altogether. They could even lose their lives. We have all seen the news reports of the National Guardsman, the nurse's aide in Florida, and the nurse on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Each of them received the vaccine, but then later died of cardiac arrest. We don't know, yet, whether there is a direct link between the smallpox vaccine and these heart problems. The Centers for Disease Control have not been able to definitively rule a connection in or out. But the CDC has now recommended that anyone who has a known heart ailment not receive the smallpox vaccination. And New York State and Illinois--as well as a number of municipalities--have temporarily suspended any further vaccinations until there is a more thorough investigation. The bottom line is, whether any connection is proven between the smallpox vaccine and heart disease, there will ultimately be injuries and deaths from the vaccine. There is no question of that. The choice of whether to get vaccinated is up to the nurses and the other first responders themselves based, in part, on the adequacy of the vaccine program we provide for them. That is why we believe an adequate smallpox vaccine compensation package has to have a clear education component so that the health care workers and other first responders will know what the most likely side effects will be and what the effects could be on their families. Legislation of this kind should have the strongest possible pre- screening program based upon the most up-to-date information. It should have an aggressive monitoring program so that health experts can follow up the vaccinations and look out for patterns of adverse reactions so we can adjust the pre-screening program. And it should provide a level of financial security so those who take the vaccination can be assured that their families will receive compensation if they become disabled or lose their lives protecting Americans from the horrific effects of a terrorist-sponsored smallpox attack. The Republican bill falls short on each of these counts. There is a better way. We can defeat this bill under the suspension of the rules. We can go back to the negotiating table or we can bring a new bill to the Floor with a substitute amendment that the nurses and first responders say will truly respond to their concerns. My colleagues, I urge you to defeat the Burr bill today. Let us have a vote on the Capps-Waxman proposal that will better protect our public servants--our heroes and our heroines--and better produce the desired effect of having more frontline workers inoculated against a smallpox attack. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican bill.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his distinguished leadership in putting together the Spratt proposal this evening. I rise in strong support of the Spratt budget resolution and in opposition to the Republican budget on the floor tonight. I want to congratulate the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his great leadership. I also want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for his leadership on the Congressional Black Caucus budget and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for his leadership on the Blue Dog budget. All three of these Democratic budgets are far superior to the Republican proposal. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that our Federal budget should be a statement of our national values. We should allocate our resources to those proposals that are important to us. Let me ask my colleagues, is it a statement of your values to cut funding in the education of our children in order to give a tax cut to the wealthiest in America? I did not think so. America's children deserve better. Is it a statement of your values to give a meager drug prescription benefit and cut nursing home care to America's seniors while giving the most of the tax breaks to those who need it least? I did not think so either. America's seniors deserve better. Is it a statement of your values to cut funding for America's disabled veterans and not include one penny for a war budget as we send our young men and women into harm's way? America's veterans and servicemen and women deserve better. Is it a statement of your values to underfund Homeland Security while we are on high alert? The American people deserve better. The Republican budget is clearly not a statement of our national values. It explodes the deficit, fails to create jobs, and fails to invest in the education and health care initiatives that this country needs for long-term economic growth. I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his masterful leadership in developing a Democratic budget that creates jobs, in fact, 1 million new jobs this year. The Spratt proposal balances the budget, sparks economic growth, funds the priorities of working families, education for their children, prescription drugs for their parents and grandparents, health care for our veterans, and resources for the police and firefighters who protect our communities. This Democratic budget invests in our children. The Republican budget indebts them. This Democratic budget gives the American people the responsible budget they deserve. The Republican budget is reckless and irresponsible. On every measure important to working families, the Democratic budget is better. We will fight this unconscionable Republican budget at every opportunity. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on Spratt.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding time and for his distinguished service on the committee and to our country, and I also commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). In the previous day, a couple of weeks ago, we had a very fine resolution on the floor that they proposed that was worthy of the troops that we were honoring. I wish we had that resolution before us today. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution which, in part, honors our courageous men and women in uniform. I disagree with the policy that took us to this war. I dispute some of the arguments used in favor of this resolution, and I am disappointed in some of the provisions in it, but even those objections cannot overcome the pride and appreciation that I have in our troops and the message that I want them to hear from us tonight of our support for them. Tonight the thoughts and prayers of all Americans are with our military forces and their families. I think we should be honoring the military wherever they serve in our country tonight because they are all brave, courageous, patriotic and willing to make the sacrifice for our country. Mr. Speaker, I certainly think we could have done better in this resolution, but do not let that stand in Members' way for us to give a resounding vote of support of appreciation and pride for our men and women in uniform. Tonight we learned of the first casualties of this war. Sixteen American and British Marines have died in a tragic helicopter accident in Kuwait. I hope it is a comfort to the families who lost their loved ones that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time. There is no heavier burden for a President and no more solemn choice for this Nation than to send our young men and women into battle. As Commander in Chief, President Bush has made that difficult decision. Despite our policy decisions, as Americans we stand behind our men and women in uniform. As Congress, charged by the U.S. Constitution with providing for the common defense, we pledge today to our Armed Forces and their families, they will have the support they need in this dangerous and difficult time, both to win the war and to secure the peace. In recent weeks I have met with some of these courageous men and women. We have all been meeting with them over time; but as the war drew near, it was more poignant. I traveled with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, to Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to meet with the B-2 crews that may soon be engaged over Iraq. They were again brave and patriotic. Everyone respected the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), as Members can imagine; and everyone recognized what a great patriot he is in our country. Three weeks ago, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), I traveled to Kuwait, Qatar, and Turkey to meet with the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines now risking their lives in Iraq. We brought with us Members' good wishes of appreciation and pride, and thanked them for their patriotism, courage and, willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice. Our men and women in uniform are an inspiration. They have waved good-bye to their husbands, wives, and children; and they endure daily hardships over many months to enhance America's diplomatic leverage. They are focused on their mission, motivated by a profound love of country and prepared, yes, to make the ultimate sacrifice. They are the best-trained, best-equipped and best-led military force the world has ever seen; and every American is eternally indebted to these patriots. During our visit to the Persian Gulf, we met a young soldier named Captain Jennifer Schulke of Fort Bliss, Texas. She commands a Patriot missile battery in Kuwait. With the precision and ease of an engineer, she described for us the capability of the weapons system she commands. But she spoke with even greater pride of something else, about her daughter back home. Her daughter will be 2 years old on March 27, and on her birthday her mother will be serving in a country halfway around the world. Captain Schulke is one of the countless mothers and fathers, husband and wives and sons and daughters in uniform making sacrifices American families can only begin to imagine. I thought of her today when we heard of the Scud attacks and the Patriot response. It is people like Captain Schulke who inspire us and insist that we must support our men and women in uniform. Today we pray for their swift and safe return into the loving arms of their families. When they come home, we will honor them for the heroes they are. And if they do not come home, we will support their families and honor their heroic deeds. We also honor our men and women in uniform by proving ourselves worthy of their sacrifice when we uphold the democratic values they defend with their very lives. As we protect and defend the American people, we must also protect and defend the Constitution and the civil liberties contained therein which we cherish. And we must treat honest debate for what it is, an expression of patriotism, not a violation of it. Open discussion of the great task before us does not give comfort to America's adversaries. No, on the contrary, it gives comfort and confidence to the American people who look to Congress to uphold the immutable values and ideals that define our American democracy. Today, America's sons and daughters preparing to go into Iraq have answered the call of their country. In the days to come, let us build a future worthy of their sacrifice. May God bless our courageous forces and their brave families. May God bless America.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Ms. Speaker, I rise in honor of Tibetan Uprising Day. Yesterday, Human Rights Watch reported that two Tibetan businessmen have been detained by Chinese authorities, apparently on suspicion of leaking information on the torture and trial of other Tibetan activists. It was an important reminder of the continued need to speak out against human rights abuses by the Chinese government. The following is my statement in observance of Tibetan Uprising Day that was read yesterday in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco: Thank you to Bay Area Friends of Tibet and other Bay Area Tibet Support Groups for organizing this special observance of Tibetan Uprising Day. I am proud to represent a district where protecting human rights is a top priority. Today we honor the courage and determination of those who stood against the Chinese Government's brutal oppression of the Tibetan People during the Lhasa Uprising 44 years ago. We also pay tribute to the thousands of Tibetans who have sacrificed and died opposing Chinese occupation, as well as all Tibetans who have suffered human rights abuses due to their religious, political or cultural beliefs or activities. I am deeply concerned about the Chinese government's continued repression of the Tibetan people. The PRC continues to commit horrible human rights abuses, including instances of torture, arbitrary arrest, detention without public trial, and lengthy detention of Tibetan nationalists for peacefully expressing their political or religious views. Two weeks ago, 78 of my colleagues in Congress and I wrote to Vice President Hu condemning the execution of Mr. Lobsang Dhondup. We also strongly urged him to commute the sentences of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche and Tserang Dondrup, and to release the others currently being held in connection with this case. These individuals were held incommunicado and suffered torture, and their trials were conducted under highly restrictive conditions and without counsel of their choosing. The Chinese government denied all requests by the U.S. Consulate in Chengdu to observe these legal proceedings that reportedly did not meet United Nations' minimum standards of due process. Such abuses of judicial processes and disingenuous actions on the part of the Chinese Government are not conducive to good U.S.-China relations. The plight of the Tibetan people is a challenge to the global conscience. Because of our unique position in the world, the U.S. has a special opportunity and responsibility to promote the values of liberty, equality, and human rights that we hold dear. If the U.S. government is serious about helping the Tibetan people, it must promote negotiations between the government of China and His Holiness the Dalai Lama and make self-determination for Tibetans a priority in the U.S.- China relationship. Thank you for your continued activism for the people of Tibet. Your actions, words and prayers will move mountains. Please be assured I will continue to support the aspirations of the Tibetan people to preserve their heritage and regain their freedom.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of the men and women in uniform in his career in Congress. And I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) as well, the chairman of the committee, the two of them, for bringing this resolution to the floor, which I was proud to join my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) in being an early co-sponsor of. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of going to Whiteman Air Force Base with our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to say to the men and women in uniform there how proud we are of them, how proud we are of their patriotism, the sacrifice that they are willing to make. And this weekend I joined the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) to visit our men and women in uniform in the Persian Gulf. We had the privilege of representing both sides of the aisle to the young men and women there to say how proud again that we were of them and the sacrifice they were making. All of us take pride in the many relationships we have with the military. My uncle died in the Battle of the Bulge. My family continues to be proud of the Purple Heart he received. Four of my brothers served, three in the active army, one in the reserve. So when we saw these young people there, it was bringing a lot of history to the conversation. One young woman we met, Captain Jennifer Schulke, was the commander of the Patriot. She oversaw the Patriot missile. She is so talented, so in control of her situation, so smart, so wise, and so brave. We asked her about her life personally, and she told us that her little baby girl was going to be 2 years old on March 27. She, of course, will not be home for her daughter's birthday. Imagine the sacrifice that this young woman is making, not only with her life, possibly, but also being away from her family. Mr. Speaker, the stories go on and on. The patriotism is endless. Wherever we stand on this war in terms of policy, we are united in our support and admiration for the men and women in uniform, for their courage, for their patriotism, and for the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country. The Korean War Memorial has engraved on it, ``Freedom is not free.'' No one knows that better than the men and women in uniform.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the distinguished majority leader in introducing the House Resolution honoring the crew of Space Shuttle Columbia. I wish to express my condolences to the distinguished majority leader and our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), in whose district the Johnson Space Center is domiciled; and to all of our colleagues from Texas, to them and to their constituents we offer our deepest, deepest sympathy. The astronauts trained and lived in Houston, traveled 6 million miles away; and as President Bush said so eloquently yesterday, ``We lost them so close to home.'' Yesterday I had the privilege of joining many of my colleagues in traveling to Houston for a memorial service honoring the seven heroic astronauts who were lost on Saturday morning when the Space Shuttle Columbia exploded just minutes before its scheduled landing. These brave men and women made the ultimate sacrifice so that we might enhance our understanding of the universe. They have the eternal gratitude of an entire Nation and, indeed, the entire world. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge and pay my respects to Sean O'Keefe, the administrator of NASA, and the people who work at NASA, for their dedication, for their courage and to acknowledge the suffering they are going through having lost their friends. The world mourns the deaths of Air Force Colonel Rick Husband, the shuttle's commander; Navy Commander Willie McCool, the mission's pilot; Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Michael Anderson, the payload commander in charge of the science equipment; Dr. Kalpana Chawla, an aerospace engineer, an exceptional young woman; Navy doctors Captain David Brown and Commander Laurel Salton Clark; and Colonel Ilan Ramon, the first Israeli in space. I want to extend my condolences to Prime Minister Sharon and the people of Israel on the loss that they and we have suffered in losing Colonel Ilan Ramon. We are all blessed to have had such outstanding men and women serving in our space program. For more than 4 decades, the space program has been a bold expression of American optimism. Who can forget the burst of national pride when our former congressional colleague John Glenn first orbited the Earth in 1962, and again 7 years later when Neil Armstrong took that one small step for man, that one giant leap for mankind? Perhaps that spirit was best expressed by the philosopher Socrates, who lived thousands of years before space travel began. He said, ``Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.'' Space travel has been driven by more than a sense of adventure and curiosity. Our forays into space have been about advancing the human conditions in science and discovery. NASA and the space program have helped put the United States on the technological cutting edge, strengthening our economy and fortifying our national defense. Space exploration has led to life-saving medical research, high- performance computers, and ground-breaking satellite technologies. Driven by the need to provide energy to satellites and spacecraft, NASA spurred the development of solar photovoltaic cells and fuel cells. By collecting data about Earth's geology, atmosphere and water, the space program helps us protect the environment and use our natural resources wisely. The space program alone has contributed to the development of everything from life-saving heart pumps to ultraviolet-protection suits, to increasing our knowledge of global warming and the aging process. The exploration of other worlds has allowed us to enhance our understanding of our own world. The search for life elsewhere in the universe has enriched our lives here on Earth. But like any ambitious mission worth undertaking, space travel is not without risk; and in this case, tragically, the risk is measured in human lives. During these days of mourning, our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the astronauts. I hope that it is a comfort to them that the whole world mourns their loss and is praying for them at this sad time. And so it is with great sadness that I join my distinguished colleague, the majority leader, in introducing this resolution honoring the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson). The Johnson Space Center is domiciled in his district. He probably had more constituents affected by this tragedy than any other Member, and in yielding him the 3 minutes I also yield him the privilege of managing the rest of the time on this important resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable woman, Mrs. Willie B. Kennedy, who has served with distinction on the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Board of Directors since 1996. Mrs. Kennedy is retiring from the BART Board effective January 31, 2003. Thankfully, Mrs. Kennedy is not leaving public service entirely, after working for over 60 years as a political and social activist and elected official in the San Francisco Bay Area. She will continue her work in the Hunters Point neighborhood with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, which oversees development there. Mrs. Kennedy is an outspoken advocate for public transit and transit- oriented development. During her six years as a BART director, she was chosen by her colleagues to serve as president in 2001 and vice president in 2000. Mrs. Kennedy pushed BART to begin a tradition of donating special ``flash passes'' to community organizations for train rides to and from San Francisco's annual Martin Luther King, Jr. parade and memorial ceremonies. She works diligently behind the scenes to respond to her constituents' concerns about BART service and facilities. She has been a long-time supporter of the new BART extension to the San Francisco International Airport. As a BART board member, Mrs. Kennedy served as vice chairperson of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Liaison Committee. She was a member of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Board, the San Francisco Transportation Authority Liaison Committee, the San Mateo County Negotiation/SFO Extension Committee, and the Santa Clara County Policy Committee. In addition to her years of service to BART, Mrs. Kennedy is a former Supervisor of the City and County of San Francisco. She was appointed to the Board of Supervisors in March 1981 by former Mayor and now U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein. She completed the unexpired term of the late Supervisor Ella Hill Hutch, was elected in her own right in 1984, 1988 and 1992, and served until May 1996. She has served as the President of the San Francisco Transportation Authority and on the boards of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the California and National Associations of Counties, and the California and National Leagues of Cities. Willie Kennedy received her early education in Dallas, Texas and was awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree in journalism from San Francisco State University. She is the widow of the late Superior Court Judge Joseph G. Kennedy, mother of one daughter and two foster daughters, grandmother of nine, great grandmother of 20 and great-great grandmother of one. During her many years as a civic leader, Willie B. Kennedy has earned the respect of all who have worked with her. I commend her for her many years of dedicated public service and wish her the best of luck in the future.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I thank him for his leadership in bringing this very important motion to the floor. I stand here beside this photograph of the first responder with the President of the United States with great pride. We can all associate ourselves with that moment. As the President embraces the firefighter, so did the entire Nation. On September 11, the whole world watched in horror when we saw the tragedy unfolding in New York and elsewhere and resolved that we must do everything in our power to make sure that such a tragedy never happens again. We also watched in awe to see the courageous action of the first responder, the police and firemen. That is why it is so hard to understand why we even have to go through this today. Does not the entire country agree that these firefighters and policemen, the first responders, are owed a debt of gratitude by our Nation? Do we want people to take risks to save the lives of others when we will not even fund a study to take a measure of what impact their courage may have had on their personal physical health? In the President's State of the Union Address last year, he promised to help local communities train and equip their first responders and provide for other homeland security needs. I listened with interest as the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations said that this is not just a national responsibility, it is also a State and local. It is indeed that. But as elected officials at the national level, our first responsibility is to protect the American people, to make this country safe. Certainly we do that jointly with the local and State governments, but they have incurred tremendous costs, $2.6 billion as far as the municipalities are concerned; practically $75 billion in terms of the States in order to help take up some of our national responsibility that we have not funded. And why have we not funded it? Because the administration and the Republicans have said that, for example, the $5 billion that was proposed in the other body as an amendment for first responders was well-intentioned but unaffordable. Well-intentioned but unaffordable. And the $1.5 billion that Congress passed and the President refuses to spend cannot be spent because we are on a war-time budget. How do we explain this to the American people? How do we explain it to this brave firefighter and his family, that we can afford a $674 billion tax cut, largely benefiting the wealthiest people in our country, but we cannot afford $1.5 billion already passed by Congress for our law enforcement, for homeland security, and we cannot afford the well- intentioned, but unaffordable, $5 billion for homeland security? And this amendment includes a $90 million study. Nothing could be clearer in terms of the need. Nothing could be more specific in terms of the remedy. Nothing challenges our conscience more that we would turn away from the first responders when they are suffering effects from the courage that we all identified with, worshipped at the shrine of, embraced, yet now we cannot do it. We are too busy giving $674 billion largely to the wealthiest people in our country. Where are our priorities? So tonight when the President comes to the floor to give the State of the Union address, I, like every other person in America, will welcome him with great anticipation and great respect. We all want our President to succeed. We all want to be in as much agreement with him as possible. But we cannot listen to rhetoric about first responders. We cannot look at photo ops and see the sincerity that we know is there, because our President is a sincere person, if this Congress refuses to match the compassion with the $90 million that is necessary for this study. I commend our colleagues from New York for bringing this to our attention and just say that this all takes place in the context of rejecting the $5 billion; rejecting the $90 million, rejecting the $1.5 million, the pocket veto of the $150 million in emergency responder grants in August of last year, and the Justice Department temporarily suspending award grants to the first responders that I already referenced, and, according to calculations, the slashing in the budget is roughly $200 million out of the $3.5 billion for first responders. It just goes on and on and on. There is a consistent pattern of saying we cannot afford this. Well, if we cannot afford to come to their rescue, how can we expect them to come to ours? If we cannot afford to come to their rescue, how on Earth can we afford a $674 billion tax cut for the wealthiest people in America? I know that is not the sentiment of this body. I know that is not the sentiment of our distinguished chairman. So let us all follow the lead of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and get this over with quickly before more people find out what is going on on this floor today; that this House may reject this $90 million study. Mr. Speaker, with that I urge my colleagues to support the Obey motion.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. First, congratulations to each and every Member of this House on your swearing-in to the 108th Congress which is about to occur. A special congratulations and welcome to the freshmen to the Capitol and certainly to their families and friends. Let us all welcome our freshmen Members. Let me also thank my Democratic colleagues. I am humbled by the honor they have bestowed upon me to become the House Democratic leader. I know that I speak for all of us when I express profound gratitude to our esteemed colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). We thank the gentleman for his unwavering service to this institution and to our country. It is a great honor to follow in his footsteps. And to my family, my dear husband, Paul, our five children, and our five grandchildren, and to my D'Alesandro family, I thank them very much for the love, support, encouragement, and joy that they have given me. Because of you, and the people of San Francisco, whom I am honored to serve, I had the unprecedented privilege today to have my name placed in nomination as the first woman ever to do so in the history of the House of Representatives. I am grateful to my colleagues for the confidence and proud of my party for breaking down another barrier and leading America closer to the ideal of equality that is both our heritage and our hope. We serve in the people's House; and today, I want to pay tribute to the American people. It is their greatness, their fair-mindedness, their commitment to family, their willingness to hope and dream that sustain our country. I especially wish to acknowledge the men and women in uniform whose courage keeps our country free and safe and makes it possible for us to strive for peace on Earth and goodwill toward mankind. For more than 214 years, the American people have issued a most awesome challenge to those of us in Congress. Debate, the American people tell us when they send us here, debate the great issues of our Nation. Decide matters of war and peace. Fashion laws and policies that will make our economy sound, our institutions fair, our society just, our environment protected, our people educated and healthy, our religions and beliefs free from constraint, and our homeland secure from terror. Debate policies, the American people tell us, which will ensure peace and justice throughout the world, comfort the afflicted, give voice to the oppressed, and make the future brighter for our children. Today I speak as the leader of the minority in a closely divided House of Representatives. We are on different sides of the aisle, but we have shared oath and a greater obligation to serve our country together, both to find common ground wherever we can and to stand our ground wherever we must to be true to the people we represent. My colleagues, I commit to all of you and to the American people that our party will always stand for the principles in which we believe, for I believe those principles represent the mainstream beliefs of our Nation: fairness, opportunity, patriotism, community, equal rights and a strong America, safe and prosperous at home, and committed abroad to a more secure and just world, free from the fear of terrorism. So in that spirit, I ask the majority in this House and the administration to join us in a new spirit to get our economy moving again in a way that helps working families. I ask that you join us in creating jobs and providing access to quality health care for America's families, including a prescription drug coverage for our seniors. I ask that, after having passed the Leave No Child Behind Act, we act now to pledge to put our children first and fully fund their education. Finally and fundamentally, on the great and fateful issues we have all faced as Americans, especially since September 11, let me pledge for my party our absolute commitment to our national security, to winning the battle against terrorism and countering the threat of weapons of mass destruction. At times, we will have to debate on how best to provide for the common defense. That debate is not only right and necessary, it is at the heart of our democracy. But let there be no doubt, in our commitment to the strength and safety of America, there are no Democrats, there are no Republicans. Together, as Americans, we must and will prevail. We have great and grave issues to decide, as fateful as any faced by any of the 107 Congresses before us. So let us reach across party lines as we stand for principle, and let this be our own test, to advance and defend what is best for America. Now it is my privilege to present the Speaker of the House with my hardiest congratulations. Mr. Speaker, I hope in the next Congress our roles will be reversed, and you will have this wonderful privilege of presenting the gavel. In introducing our Speaker, let me first pay tribute to his skill, his decency and his integrity. We all hold the title of ``honorable'' by virtue of the office we hold; Dennis Hastert holds the title of ``honorable'' by virtue of his character. He is a man of honor. It is my privilege, colleagues, to present the Speaker of the House for the 108th Congress, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 8) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I support the majority leader's comments.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues from California in honoring the memory of Joe Remcho, who was a great attorney in our State and who pled cases before the Supreme Court there very successfully. His daughter, Morgan, has been an intern in my office. So I know the values that this family shares and how committed they were to public service and for improving the lives of everyone in our country. Our sympathies go to every member of Joe Remcho's family. He was highly respected in the State of California. His death is a tragedy for many of us. He will be sorely missed, and I hope it is a comfort to his family that so many people share their loss and are praying for them at this sad time and that his passing has been recorded by the California Members of Congress in this very distinguished House of Representatives.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report and thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), our distinguished chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for his very kind words of farewell to me as I leave the committee after 10 years of service there. It has been a privilege to serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and as the gentleman said, we always put national security first, so our work there is generally conducted in a bipartisan way, and never more so than under the leadership of our chairman, who has been very bipartisan in his approach and given us the opportunity to air our differences, which largely are not partisan, but just differences of opinion that Republicans and Democrats may share. In any case, the tenor of his leadership has been one that has been conducive to a very bipartisan atmosphere which is very wholesome for the work that we do, and that work is vital to our country. So, Mr. Speaker, I thank him for his kind remarks. I congratulate the gentleman on his excellent leadership. It has been an honor to serve with the gentleman, and I look forward to working with the gentleman from the perspective of the Democratic leader. Mr. Speaker, this is the last bill I will manage from appropriations or from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and I, too, want to join the chairman in thanking our other departing members on the Democratic side, the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), for their distinguished leadership on the committee. We will all benefit from the work of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) tonight when we discuss the independent commission, which is in this bill thanks to his relentless leadership, and also bid adieu to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), who is going on to other work. When I joined the committee 10 years ago, the Gulf War had been recently concluded. As I leave as a voting member, the threat of war has returned to the Gulf region. One of the primary purposes of intelligence is to enable U.S. military forces to wage any campaign successfully, with a minimum of casualties. Force protection is our primary responsibility. Great progress has been made since the Gulf War in using intelligence to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of weapons and in hastening the flow of intelligence to military commanders. Those efforts are sustained appropriately in this conference report. Equal in importance to the role of intelligence in making certain that wars are won is its role in preventing wars from being fought; some might even say, and I agree, even more important. The conference report, particularly in the emphasis it places on strengthening the intelligence analytic function, should improve the quality of information policymakers and diplomats need to anticipate and resolve problems before they lead to armed confrontation. The committee's work this year has been influenced greatly by the events of September 11, 2001. Our Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, chaired by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), has been at the forefront of efforts to draw lessons from those events and fashion corrective measures which lessen the chances for successful future attacks. The conference report has counterterrorism at its highest funding priority. Next year, I expect that with the benefit of the recommendations to be made in the report of the joint September 11 inquiry the committee and its Senate counterpart are conducting, significant changes will be proposed in the way in which the intelligence community conducts its antiterrorism activities. As thorough as the work of the joint inquiry has been, the dimensions of the September 11 attacks demands an additional kind of review. I am pleased that the conference report will establish a commission to take a comprehensive, independent, I hope, look across the agencies of government at the preparation for, and response to, those horrific events. I expect that the commission, which I mentioned is in this bill because of the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), will benefit greatly from the work of the joint inquiry and the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security as it undertakes its critical assignment. The brave and dedicated men and women of the intelligence community perform an invaluable service for our country, and I want them to know how impressed we have all been by the work they do under frequently dangerous and demanding conditions. They deserve our appreciation. The conference report should assist them particularly in the area of language training in ways which will improve their effectiveness in years to come. Given the uncertainties and complexities of the threats we face, especially those posed by international terrorists and proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, it is imperative that the ranks of intelligence officers be as diverse as possible. Not enough progress has been made in this area despite repeated expressions of interest by members of the committee. I hope greater attention will be paid to this matter in the future. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I went on the committee 10 years ago. My interest there centered around stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, protecting our civil liberties as we try to gain as much intelligence as possible around the world to protect our forces, and also the prevention of war, as well as protecting us from terrorism. I hope that as we go forward with homeland security, which is essential to our country's security, that we will recall that each one of us takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and as we protect and defend our country we must honor our oath to protect the Constitution and the civil liberties contained therein. I am very pleased that President Bush has made stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction a high priority. It is a pervasive problem, not only in Iraq but in other places in the world and it must have our attention. The United States must have a policy which is consistent to stop that proliferation. Mr. Speaker, the capability to acquire intelligence is integral to the security of the American people. The conference report makes an important contribution to maintaining that capability. I commend the chairman for his leadership in putting this bill together and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), a distinguished member of the committee and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, and acknowledge the valuable contribution that subcommittee has made to our national security.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), a departing member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, yet one who has demonstrated leadership right up to the last day of the Congress to ensure that we have an independent commission and that it would be one that will make our country safer.