Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay final tribute to one of San Francisco's most generous patrons of the arts, Phyllis Wattis, who died June 5th at age 97. Phyllis's extraordinary generosity and commitment to artistic, educational, and scientific organizations continues to enrich the lives of all of us who live in the San Francisco Bay Area. Through her philanthropy and her personal warmth, she left an indelible mark on our City and the lives of those who loved and admired her. Phyllis and her husband Paul moved to San Francisco in 1937. With her pioneering spirit and contagious enthusiasm, Phyllis adopted the arts as her philanthropic cause. In 1958, Mr. and Mrs. Wattis established the Paul L. and Phyllis Wattis Foundation. When her husband died in 1971, she assumed the presidency of the Foundation. After 1988, Phyllis dissolved the foundation and began making individual contributions to a variety of educational and cultural institutions. Her consummate modesty in giving makes it impossible to know the total amount of her contributions, but it has been estimated at $200 million. She gave to the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, the San Francisco Symphony, the San Francisco Opera and the San Francisco Art Institute. She donated significantly to the San Francisco Museum of Modem Art, first to construct its stunning new home and then to build a world- renowned collection equal to its new building. She funded a new building at the California Academy of Sciences, and gave major grants to the Smith Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, Children's Hospital of San Francisco, UC Irvine, and Bellarmine College Preparatory. Nearly every major cultural, educational, and scientific organization in San Francisco has benefited from her generosity. For her long service to the community, she received an honorary Doctor of Fine Arts degree from the San Francisco Art Institute and commendations from several San Francisco Mayors. I was proud to nominate her for a National Medal of Arts. Phyllis's contribution to the arts was not only financial. Her leadership, creativity, and intelligence were immense gifts in their own right. She was never afraid to take risks on new and innovative art, and her vision enabled arts organizations to push forward into new ground. Her sharp eye and captivating personality helped to nurture some of the city's most important cultural institutions. San Francisco is forever indebted to Phyllis. Her contributions to our cultural resources are immeasurable; her friendship and energy will be sorely missed. It is with great sadness and recognition of their loss that I offer my deepest sympathies to her son Paul, her daughter Carol, her five grandsons, three granddaughters, and eight great grandchildren. Like the art she left behind, our memories of Phyllis are permanent and beautiful.

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 Roemer amendment. I hope that our colleagues will join a bipartisan group of Members in voting ``aye'' at the end of this debate. This is a very important debate for our country. Not only do I support the Roemer amendment for an independent commission, I authored legislation for an independent commission last year. Indeed, that commission was accepted by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was not until we came to the floor when others chimed in that my commission was changed and then struck from the bill in conference. But I want to read from the committee bill from last year because I think it is important for the committee to know why an independent commission is necessary. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence said, ``The committee believes that the commission will only be successful if it is seen to be truly independent of any perceived notions about the effectiveness of the activities of the departments and agencies it will review. Appointing members with a reputation for challenging conventional wisdom, wide perspective, bold and innovative thought and broad experience in dealing with complex problems will contribute directly to instilling the commission with an independent spirit which will enhance the credibility of its work. Those given the authority to appoint members of the commission are urged to be especially sensitive to the committee's concerns in this regard.'' I read this, Mr. Chairman, because I think it speaks directly to the difference between what this commission's product could be and the work of our joint inquiry. As one who has served 10 years, longer than anyone on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and I do not mean to equate longevity with expertise, certainly our distinguished chairman's reputation for knowledge in the intelligence community is unsurpassed, but that does not mean that we cannot have a disagreement about how we should go forward. In our committee we are engaged in a joint inquiry into September 11. We owe the families affected by that tragedy some answers. We need to reduce risk to the American people, and finding out how September 11 happened will help us protect the American people. Tomorrow we will start debate on the floor on the Department of Homeland Security which too has as its goal to reduce risk and increase safety for the American people. But there is more that we can do to give some answers to the families affected and indeed to every person in America about how we can increase safety as much as is humanly possible in the world that we live in today. What is the harm, I ask Members, of finding out more? What is the disadvantage of having fresh eyes look at a situation? When we have had some of the family members come to visit us about the September 11 tragedy, they tell us that just a simple thing like a plane flying overhead or a warning of a suspected terrorist attack, and that is not ordinary, fills them with terror. That is the goal of terrorists, of course, to fill people with terror, so that a country changes the way it conducts itself. We are a strong country. We will protect and defend the American people as we protect and defend the Constitution. In order to do that, we need the best possible information. Our joint inquiry is an excellent inquiry. Great people are at work on it. I know that we will produce an excellent report, largely because of the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) in the House and Senator Graham in the Senate and the rest of us working closely in a bipartisan fashion. We know firsthand the excellent work of the people in the intelligence community. They need answers, too, I believe, from an independent commission with fresh eyes and an entrepreneurial look at what the possibilities are. We have reviewed in our committee the intelligence aspects. That is what the gentleman from Indiana's amendment serves to do as well. I would have hoped that he could have gotten a waiver from the Committee on Rules for a broader investigation so that we could assess the performance of every agency of government which had every responsibility. Since that is not the case, I urge our colleagues to support this narrower commission, fresh eyes, more safety. Vote ``aye'' on the Roemer amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for managing this bill for the Democrats and for the gentleman's distinguished work on the committee. I have to be excused for having to be upstairs in the Committee on Rules speaking for the rule on the homeland security bill which will come to the floor hopefully tomorrow. I begin by complimenting the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) for the manner in which he has guided the committee. He has been consistently fair and always true to his word. I think that is a great compliment and one that he deserves completely. The committee's reputation for bipartisanship has been enhanced by his disposition toward encouraging and respecting the views of all of our members, as will be clear when we see how easy it is for this bill to pass on the floor. The chairman has explained well the provisions of the bill. It recommends substantially more money, many billions of dollars more, than was provided for the current fiscal year. If the amounts recommended in the bill are appropriated, the community will receive the largest one-year increase in funding on a percentage basis in at least the last two decades. Much of this increase is directly attributable to the September 11 attacks. Although no amount of money can guarantee that there will not be additional instances of terrorism, the funding recommended by this bill should make it harder to undertake in a successful way future terrorist attacks like those conducted on September 11. The committee's priority must be on making sure that this money is spent well on programs and activities that will produce results, not only against terrorism, but against other important intelligence targets as well. We have worked very closely in a bipartisan way on our committee under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). I want to commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) for their distinguished service on the committee as well, and join others in commending the staff for the excellence of their work and their service to our country. I leave it to the distinguished chairman to recognize the majority members, but every one of them makes a tremendous contribution to our country's security. Intelligence is integral to that security, to the protection of the American people and our national interests at home and abroad. Whether our interests are defined as providing security to a special operations team in Afghanistan or passengers in an airliner in the skies over California, timely and reliable intelligence is a necessity. Although there may be differences over the manner in which some intelligence activities are conducted, and indeed we have our differences, I think we all place a high value on the protective responsibility being discharged effectively by the intelligence community. To do that, a big investment in technology and in people is needed. The investments necessary to enhance mission success in this area are recommended in this bill. Mission success is produced by things other than money. The world has changed greatly since I joined the committee 10 years ago. I think I have served longer on the committee than anyone. Now my service is coming to an end. At that time, 10 years ago, the intelligence community was primarily focused on the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today, as we know, it is primarily focused on fighting terrorism. I have been concerned that the intelligence agencies have not been quick enough to recognize the changes in training, tactics and methods of operation required to shift from dealing with a fixed target, like the Soviet Union, to more nimble targets like the terrorists and the proliferators of weapons of mass destruction. I think the record suggests that the shift has been harder to accomplish than had been presumed. In fact, in some areas it has not been fully implemented yet. For example, the pace toward creating a more diverse workforce in the intelligence community, and in improving the language capabilities of the workforce, have been too slow. Although I recognize that the relatively small number of new employees able to be hired across the community since the end of the Cold War made that a difficult challenge, today a significant increase in the workforce is happening through an acceleration in hiring, and it presents a tremendous opportunity for us to attract and reach out for the diversity that will make mission success more possible. I expect that community leaders will use this opportunity by redoubling their efforts to attract and advance people with diverse religious, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds, and with capabilities in those languages in which the agencies have traditionally been weak. H.R. 4628 does much to emphasize language training and to provide incentives to maintain proficiency. Partnerships with entities outside the government to improve the language skills of current employees, as well as new hires, are encouraged. An amendment is expected to study the feasibility of establishing a reserve core of linguists. These are good initiatives which do much to address one of the intelligence community's biggest needs. I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) for their leadership within the committee on the language issue. Their efforts have been assisted from outside the committee by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). He knows well the importance of this issue, the Defense Language Institute is located in his district, and he has worked tirelessly to improve language training programs. The bill continues to emphasize the kind of human and technical collection programs necessary to deal with targets like terrorist groups. This emphasis, however, should not ignore the imbalance across the intelligence community between collection and the ability to make use of that which is collected through timely processing, exploitation, and dissemination. Progress has been made on dissemination, which was one of the most important intelligence shortcomings during the Gulf War, but not enough attention has been paid to making sure that analytic capabilities are sufficient. Agencies need more analysts, more translators, and more equipment to speed the process of converting data into intelligence. This bill provides some much needed funding in these areas. I hope that the administration will sustain these important initiatives in future budget submissions. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we are rapidly approaching the first anniversary of September 11. The terrorist attacks of that day are always on our minds. Although the World Trade Center site has been cleared and the rebuilding of the Pentagon proceeds, the mourning for the victims continues and the life of the Nation has been affected profoundly. The committee is engaged in a process of evaluating the performance of the intelligence agencies in the months leading up to the attacks and in assessing how that performance can be improved to better ensure our security in the future. An important step in that process was taken last week with the release of the report on intelligence capabilities prepared by the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, ably led by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). The report will be a valuable tool for the inquiry being conducted jointly by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. When the report of the joint inquiry is completed, I believe the Nation will have a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of our intelligence agencies on September 11 and how weaknesses can be addressed. The report of the joint inquiry, however, will be limited necessarily by the jurisdiction of the intelligence committees. Despite our best efforts, many of the questions of the families of the victims will not be answered by the committee's work. We owe those families the most thorough and independent investigation possible. Examining all of the issues raised by the attacks will require, in my judgment, an independent commission. I hope such a commission will be established soon. I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for his leadership on this issue. I look forward to discussing his amendment. In closing, I want to acknowledge, again the contributions of my colleagues. I will continue my remarks during the amendment process.

Ms. PELOSI

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, this amendment, which I am offering with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), has a simple purpose: to harmonize the intelligence authorization bill and the emergency supplemental appropriations conference report passed yesterday on an issue relating to Colombia. That issue is the use to which funds designated for counterdrug activities for Colombia in fiscal year 2003 and made available but not expended in previous fiscal years can be put. When this matter was considered by the Select Committee on Intelligence, it was clear that we intended to mirror actions taken by the Committee on Appropriations in the emergency supplemental. Section 501 of the bill, which is nearly identical to the provision in the emergency supplemental as reported by the Committee on Appropriations, reflects that intention. In conference, the Colombia provisions in the emergency supplemental were modified. These modifications condition the use of counternarcotics money for counterterrorism purposes in Colombia on certain certifications being made by the Secretaries of State and Defense and limit participation of U.S. personnel in combat operations in Colombia to instances of self-defense or the rescue of U.S. citizens. The task which remains is to bring the intelligence bill in line with the emergency supplemental on this matter. This amendment acknowledges that purpose. I am pleased to have the chairman's support for it, and I urge its adoption by the House.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join Chairman Goss on this amendment. As he has explained, the amendment seeks to ensure that money authorized for intelligence activities in the Defense Emergency Response Fund is used for the war on terrorism. The amendment makes clear that the DERF funds are not to be used to address shortfalls in the intelligence programs not directly related to the terrorism campaign, and requires Congress to be notified before these funds are obligated or expended. I understand that the language in the amendment as modified has been worked out with the Committee on Appropriations. Congress needs to oversee carefully the operations of the DERF. This amendment will contribute to effective oversight and I support it, and I commend the gentleman for his amendment and am pleased to join in it.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I want to join the distinguished chairman in congratulating the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for his leadership, not only tonight but on an ongoing basis on this very important issue, addressing violence in the Middle East and our desire for peace there. I appreciate the constructive nature of his amendment and the more constructive nature of his with drawing it at this time and look forward to working with him to ensure an end to violence and promotion of peace in the Middle East.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the hour is late and I would like to say more, but I do want to very enthusiastically commend the gentleman for this very important amendment. On the committee we have had a tradition of chairman Louis Stokes, our former colleague, when he was the Chair of the committee, was a champion for promoting diversity in the intelligence community. That banner was later carried by our late colleague Congressman Julian Dixon as ranking member of the committee, and now the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and others on the committee are advancing this. All of us have worked very hard to impress upon the intelligence community the value of diversity to mission success. We want the very best people, and we want to draw upon the knowledge of other cultures, the language, the possibility, the opportunities, the personalities that are in our country and that understand the culture of other countries. Part of the success of intelligence is understanding plans and intentions. It takes a great deal of access and imagination. Diversity brings both of those in a way that I think we are missing and have a deficit in our current intelligence resources. We have tremendous resources, however. We are blessed with courageous and patriotic people who work every day to protect the American people. That resource can be improved and enhanced by the work that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is presenting here this evening. We cannot say it enough. We need to expand the diversity of our workforce, and we need to expand the language capabilities to another issue that was addressed here this evening. We hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Florida will build upon the work of Mr. Stokes and our dear late colleague Mr. Dixon in a way that will be exponential in light of the new hires that will have to happen in light of September 11. Again, I commend the gentleman and my distinguished chairman for agreeing to the amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Capps-Rahall- Miller amendment, which would prohibit oil drilling off the coast of Califomia in the coming year. I commend my colleagues for offering this important amendment, particularly Congresswoman Capps, whose vigilance and leadership on this issue never flags. It is for good reasons that Califomians from all walks of life oppose drilling for oil off our coast. All it would take is one spill--like the blowout that dumped 4 million gallons of crude oil in the Santa Barbara Channel in 1969--to devastate the marine environment, eliminate tourism along a long stretch of our beautiful coast, and destroy commercial and recreational fishing for years to come. And for what? There is little oil available and what is there is of low-quality oil. It is primarily used to make asphalt. So let me see if I've got this right: In exchange for hundreds of miles of lovely beaches, thousands of marine mammals, millions of tiny sea creatures, and billions of dollars in tourism and fishing revenues, we would get--asphalt?! Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan issue. It was President Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush who in 1990 placed a 10-year moratorium on new oil leases off the California coast. President Clinton renewed that moratorium in 1998. We in California were happy in May for our friends in Florida when President Bush announced a buyout of federal oil leases off the coast of Florida. Now we call on the President to do the same for the 36 oil and gas leases threatening California--even though his brother is not the Governor of our state. I also urge the Bush Administration to drop its opposition to California's activities under the Coastal Zone Management Act. The Act gives the state the authority to review the potential environmental effects of offshore drilling. My colleagues, your vote for the Capps-Rahall-Miller amendment is your endorsement of termination of the California offshore leases. Please vote yes.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I commend our colleagues for bringing this very important resolution to the floor. As I was listening to the debate on the suspensions upstairs, I was personally at first pleased, saddened, a whole mixture of emotions to hear that there was going to be a tribute to those who fought at the Battle of the Bulge, because I cannot remember a time in my whole childhood or growing up that that was not a source of sadness and pride to our family. My father's brother, John D'Alesandro, died at the Battle of the Bulge; and it was a source of great sadness for our family, for his children. But then the good news was that he received the Purple Heart. Well, that was a scary notion to a child all those years growing up. The Purple Heart? What did that mean? But it meant a wonderful thing about his bravery. So to think that all these many years later when all of us thought that we had to keep the memory alive because of our personal relationship, that this Congress would come here today to recognize those many, many, many people who fought so bravely, who have protected our freedom, who made the supreme sacrifice and those who were willing to make that sacrifice. I greatly thank our colleagues for what they are doing today, and I can speak firsthand for what it means to so many families across America.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and commend the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) for their leadership in bringing this important resolution to the floor. It is an exciting day for those of us who have served with Lindy Boggs. I am pleased to be part of this effort to honor an outstanding woman who has been such an important role model for many of us, and for so many women in political life, Ambassador Lindy Boggs. Mr. Speaker, how appropriate that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) should be managing this bill on the Democratic side. She would have a full appreciation of what Ambassador Lindy Boggs has contributed because of the considerable record of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) in all of these areas. Her appreciation is heightened and her recognition all the more important, and I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) on behalf of all of the women in the Congress. There could not be a better manager of this bill. As the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) mentioned, Lindy Boggs had a career of firsts. To name a few, of course as has been said, first woman to be elected to the House from Louisiana, first woman to chair a Democratic National convention, and the first woman to serve as ambassador to the Holy See. And what a great ambassador she was indeed. Each one of these firsts helped clear the path for women to take on leadership roles and to make their voices heard. I have no doubt if we asked Lindy Boggs about her life of public service, we would not hear about all of those firsts. We would hear about the accomplishments that went with them. What Lindy Boggs cared about were those accomplishments, not what she symbolized but what she had done. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) mentioned that there is a room named for Lindy Boggs in the Capitol and she said that rooms in the Capitol are not named for ordinary people, only extraordinary ones. Indeed, they are not even named for women. So this is quite a spectacular source of comfort to women who visit the Capitol that this room is named for Lindy Boggs, and a historic and wonderful room it is at that. We talk about her accomplishments. The list is long, and certainly time prevents me from going into everything; but I associate myself with some of the accomplishments mentioned by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentleman. She was instrumental in ensuring that women had access to credit. She fought for civil rights, pay equity for women, protection of the exploited and assistance to the underprivileged. Her leadership of the Women's Caucus created a powerful bipartisan force for creating policy on issues of concern to not just women but all Americans, issues like Social Security, pensions, and education. Her most important, I think she would say, contribution was raising her children. Her son's statement, Tom Boggs' statement about her is great. He said it best at a family celebration when he toasted her as mother, campaign manager, mother, consummate hostess, mother, civil rights advocate, mother, congresswoman, grandmother, convention chairman, mother, congresswoman, mother, author, mother, great grandmother, ambassador, mother. To that I would add one more: teacher. She taught us all when we served with her in the Congress. She taught so many of us here not about the ins and outs and the arcane goings on of this august body. She taught us not only about the issues and how to get things done but she taught us what mattered and how to do it in a way that would reap benefits not only for our issues but for our future service here. Two of those lessons are two that I would like to convey. When I think of Lindy, I always think of them; and when I employ these lessons, I always think of Lindy. She passed them on. She said Hale used to always say never fight any fight as if it is your last fight. No matter how right you think you are, no matter how involved you are with the issue, no matter how passionate, no matter how angry, no matter what, you always have to take off the gloves and shake hands when it is over, go to your respective corners and come out for another fight another day, but to always treat people as the resource that we are to each other, people here to work for the American people and not to fight to the end on any issue. And her second piece of advice she gave me long before I came to Congress, but I pass it on with attribution to her all the time, to a group of women gathered, she said know thy power, know thy power. Women, children, workers, people, we should all know our power because this Congress will always respond to the wishes of the American people, and women out there and people out there just have to make their voices heard and their concerns heard, and they can see how powerful they are. I wish to say that it is easy to get caught up in Potomac fever and believe that power resides here, but she knew and taught us and reminded us constantly that power resided with the people. Thanks to Lindy Boggs, the power is increasingly in the hands of women as well as men, and for that and for much more we are very grateful to her. I am proud to have this opportunity to join in honoring Lindy Boggs. Everyone who has ever served with her had the privilege of calling her colleague. Every person in America has been blessed by her service to our country. Yes, she is a gem and she truly deserves the title ``The Gentlewoman from Louisiana.'' I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to honor Lindy Boggs today.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the gentleman say that he anticipates that the rule will be an open rule so that we can have a debate on many of the issues of concern of many Members here on both sides of the aisle.

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of determining the schedule for next week, and I am pleased to yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Ms. PELOSI. Of course, Mr. Speaker, one important option that we have, in order to restore confidence to the markets and diminish the crisis, is to bring the Sarbanes accounting reform bill directly to the floor for consideration. I hope that the majority leader will consider that option, because time is of the essence. We must move quickly. As the gentleman knows, every day is a problem for America's families with their savings, hopes and aspirations for their children and the retirement of their parents. So I appreciate the gentleman saying it may be possible we would bring a conference report. I hope it is also possible we would bring the Sarbanes bill directly to the floor.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I just have one other concern that I wish to discuss with the distinguished majority leader. As the gentleman knows, and we have discussed before, there is a crisis in our country, and it is the confidence in our markets that we want to restore. One way we can do that is by taking up the Sarbanes accounting reform bill and the conference report before going home for recess. I would hope that this bill would be coming to the floor next week. Does the majority leader have any plans to bring the conference report to the floor?

Ms. PELOSI. Now, Mr. Leader, will we be perhaps working on Saturday of next week as well?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as one who engaged in the colloquy at the time of consideration of our select committee, the anticipation was that the Speaker and the minority leader would agree to an open rule, and I look forward to that discussion. Does the gentleman anticipate late nights next week? It sounds like it from this schedule, but I did not know if the gentleman had any insights he could share with us about the scheduling.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the distinguished gentleman. I just want to clarify certain things. On Tuesday, Vietnam, the supplemental Treasury-Postal. On Wednesday, late-term abortion, intelligence and beginning of the Homeland Security Act. What will be the procedure for the consideration of the homeland security legislation?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I support the request for us to hear the bill, but could the gentleman tell the Members how long that privilege to go upstairs to room 405 to review the bill will last until.

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

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, today's vote by the House to increase funding for the NEA and NEH is a victory of imagination over ideology. In recent years, we have worried a great deal about the digital divide--a lack of access to technology that could limit opportunity for lower-income Americans. We should be equally concerned about a creativity crisis. Studies have proven that arts education is not just a frill tacked on to the vital work of learning reading, writing and arithmetic. Art education increases skills in all of these subjects, as well as in language development and writing and spatial reasoning. Grants from the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities leverage millions of dollars each year in private support for arts projects. In many communities, they are the sole source of arts funding. This amendment would provide an additional $10 million for the NEA's ``Challenge America'' initiative, which is specifically designed to provide access to the arts for underserved communities. According to the Georgia Institute of Technology, the arts industry generations millions of jobs and $134 billion in economic activity every year. The amendment also provides $5 million for the NEH--the nation's largest source of support for research and scholarship in the humanities. I want to make it very clear that this amendment is not an increase in funding, but an attempt to recoup some of the cuts that NEA faced in 1995 when its budget was slashed by 40 percent. There is strong, bipartisan consensus now that those cuts were felt too deeply by some of our most vulnerable young people. Exposure to the arts through the NEA helps children build confidence in their class work, honors their creativity, and unleashes the power of their imagination. The poet, Shelley, once wrote that the greatest force for moral good is imagination. With the challenges that we face today, we need all the imagination we can muster.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, if the subject were not so serious about the pensions of America's families, the hopes and aspirations for their children and their children's education that has been greatly diminished by the collapse of the stock market, I would think that the distinguished majority leader was jesting in the comments that he just made.

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman.