Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I appreciate that. I would like to further inquire, Mr. Speaker, if there is any other legislative business besides appropriations bills that the gentleman expects to come up next week.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that presentation. I would just like to know how late he expects these long days and nights to go. Are we talking 3 a.m. in the morning? Can Members make plans with their families in the evening?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage once again the leaders of the majority to bring the Senate bill to the floor expeditiously.

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) to pursue that question with the very distinguished majority leader.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate, methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. Mr. Speaker, another bill that I am wondering will come up is the bill on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, on which I serve as ranking member. We finished our work a long time ago, and have been hoping to move that very important piece of legislation.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for next week.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. The fact is that the events that have followed the passage of the bill in this body have demonstrated its weakness so very clearly. So again, I reiterate my request of the gentleman to take up the Senate bill ASAP so we can send it to the President.

Ms. PELOSI. The Senate has acted very responsibly and in a manner that I hope this body will follow suit on in the bill that they have passed. The difference between the House bill and the Senate bill is drastic. That is why I asked that we take up the Senate bill tout suite and send it to the President. I had a couple of other questions, however.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the leader that I had a couple of issues in that regard. As Members know, the Senate will finish a very tough corporate accountability measure early next week that the President and the Speaker have expressed support for. Given deep concern about the corporate scandals and impact on pensions and retirement savings of Americans, we in this House need to act as quickly as possible. Would it not make sense simply to adopt the Senate bill and send it right to the President before we leave for the August recess? Is that possible?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Daniel H. Case III, who died peacefully at his home, surrounded by his loved ones, early on June 26th. Dan was a talented businessman, a lifelong scholar, and a devoted father and husband; I was proud to call him my friend. His passing leaves a great void in our lives. Dan was only 44 years old. He was compassionate, but cancer is not. It strikes tragically, without warning or reason. His future was staggeringly full of possibility, and I am so saddened to think of how much more Dan had to experience and give. Dan was a brilliant man. He was a top graduate of Princeton University and a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. We marveled at his intelligence, his insight, and his ability to see problems in new ways. His mind was always the mind of a scholar, deeply fascinated by the complexity of finance and economics. He possessed a sharp and subtle intellect that was uniquely suited to business but never confined by it. Dan was a star in the business world, rising to become one of the most important business leaders in the nation. As Chairman and CEO of Hambrecht & Quist during the height of the new technology boom, Dan helped to finance hundreds of companies, including Genentech, Netscape, Adobe, and other leaders in the high technology field. Under his leadership, Hambrecht & Quist grew to become a powerful financial player, providing resources and guidance for emerging companies in a wide range of technology areas. In 1999, Dan presided over Hambrecht & Quist when it was acquired by JPMorgan Chase. After the merger, Dan continued to advise and fund emerging companies. Dan's intelligence was only surpassed by his character. His friends and family respected him for his foresight and genius but loved him for his kindness and modesty. He was a caring husband, father, son, and brother. He gave back to the community in countless ways, donating generously to a number of community organizations, including the San Francisco Exploratorium, the San Francisco Ballet, and the United Way. Always committed to education and learning, Dan worked with other technology industry leaders to improve public education and played an important role in passing Proposition 39, the California school bonds initiative. After he was diagnosed with cancer, he founded ABC2, which funds research aimed at finding a cure for brain cancer. To his wife Stacey, to his four children, Alexander, Winston, John Daniel, and Charlotte, to his parents, Dan and Carol, to his brothers Steve and Jeff, and his sister Carin, I extend my deepest sympathies. I hope that it is a comfort to Dan's family that so many people share their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and work of Mercy Sister Patrick Curran, who died peacefully on June 10, 2002. Sister Patrick was an inspiration and a friend to so many, and we were blessed to have her with us. Her entire life was an act of worship, and we will cherish her memory forever. Sister Patrick's life embodied a Franciscan spirituality of compassion for and solidarity with the poor. Throughout her life, Sister Patrick devoted herself unconditionally to serving her sisters and brothers who were poor and elderly. She worked as a young nun in Harlem and East Los Angeles, in residential care facilities in Denver and St. Paul, and in elderly and homeless organizations in the San Francisco Bay Area. Having spent 20 years with the Little Sisters of the Poor, including several years at St. Ann's home in San Francisco, Sister Patrick Curran transferred to the Sisters of Mercy in Burlingame in 1984. She spent 12 years as Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Mercy Retirement and Care Center in Oakland before accepting a position as Executive Director of the St. Anthony Foundation, a homeless service and advocacy agency in the Tenderloin of San Francisco. St. Anthony Foundation is best known for its Free Dining Room that serves an average of 2,000 meals each day. It also has a dozen other programs that serve homeless and low-income people. Her leadership guided St. Anthony Foundation through important times in its history and development. She distinguished herself by her ability to bring together very talented people--staff, volunteers and donors--to provide quality service to St. Anthony's guests. She was steadfast in her efforts and once remarked, ``You can't give up hope. I see poverty but I see more hope. At St. Anthony's we have hundreds of young people coming to work. The young people are a sign of hope for the future.'' Her work in the Bay Area and around the nation was recognized in 2000 when Archbishop William Levada presented her with the Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice Cross, an award bestowed by the Pope on lay persons and clergy who have given exceptional service to the Church. In 2001, she received an honorary degree from the University of San Francisco School of Nursing for her years of service to the sick and aging. It is with great personal sadness and recognition of their loss that I extend my deepest sympathy to her mother Bridget Curran, her entire family, and to her religious community, the Sisters of Mercy of Burlingame. To all who loved Sister Patrick, thank you for sharing her with us and for giving her so much happiness. I am proud to join my constituents in thanking and praising Sister Patrick for her dedication to the elderly and poor of California and of this Nation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pride in San Francisco and to pay tribute to the memory of Jon D. Cook, the first openly-gay San Francisco police officer to lose his life in the line of duty. This weekend marks the 32nd annual San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Celebration entitled, ``Be Yourself, Change the World!'' This is our time to celebrate San Francisco's proud history of advocacy for equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons and to recognize the important contributions the LGBT Community makes to our City and to our nation. Officer Jon Cook's legacy is an important example of such contributions. On June 12, 2002, Officer Cook was killed when his police car collided with another police car as they both pursued a suspected violent felon. Before joining the force, he worked as a research scientist searching for a cure and treatments for HIV/AIDS. He also served honorably as a lieutenant in US Air Force intelligence with a top-level security clearance. Officer Cook touched the lives of many people in San Francisco. More than 2,000 attended his funeral mass, including friends and family members, over 600 fellow officers from throughout Northern California, and hundreds of residents and community leaders from the Castro and Mission districts that he served. His fellow policemen and women remember him as a dedicated officer who always wanted to be at the scene; residents remember with gratitude the way he looked out for them. ``Jon loved being a cop,'' recalled his domestic partner of three years, Jared Strawderman. ``He loved serving his community. He loved being in situations where he could help people. He wanted to go to where the trouble was and fix the problem.'' To his parents Jon Sr. and Rosemary Cook; his siblings Bonnie, Brian, Wayne, Jamie and Gary; partner Jared Strawderman; and his many nieces and nephews; we share your loss, and we are grateful for the service Jon provided to the people of San Francisco. The contributions of Officer Cook and so many others in San Francisco bring into sharp focus the need for basic protections of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons. As we mourn the loss of Jon Cook, we also reaffirm our commitment to the fight for equal rights for all and our belief in the beauty of our diversity.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay a final tribute to the magnificent life of Mabel Schine. Mabel passed away recently in San Francisco after a lifetime of community service and leadership. We are very grateful for her distinguished career and her inspirational life, and we will miss her greatly. As a dietary expert at San Francisco's Mount Zion Hospital, Mary's Help Hospital, and the Jewish Home for the Aged and as the City's first African American District Health Director, Mabel demonstrated her remarkable talents as a dietician and as an expert advisor during her thirty-year career. Her service to the City of San Francisco included work for the Economic Opportunity Council and Model Cities Program and on the Citizen's Advisory Committee for Mayor Feinstein's Office of Community Development. She served as Treasurer of the San Francisco Black Leadership Forum and was actively involved in San Francisco politics. Following her retirement, she continued to serve her community at Bayview Hunter's Point Senior Health Day Care Center, Bayview Hunter's Point Boy and Girls Club, and as President of the San Francisco Sickle Cell Disease Foundation. Her service also extended to Contra Costa County where she led non-profit boards, ran government commissions, and tirelessly and eloquently advocated on behalf of the black community. To her husband Lloyd Schine, her daughter Marvin Jean and her son Lloyd Jr., her sisters, her grandchildren and her many dear friends, thank you for sharing Mabel with our City and our community. I hope it is a comfort to you that so many people share your grief and honor her memory.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and thank him for his leadership and that of so many other members on the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means for their leadership in making the distinction between what the Democrats would have proposed had the Republicans not been afraid of seeing a real prescription drug benefit plan on the floor tonight and their sham, their cruel hoax, on America's seniors that they have presented. Why is it a cruel hoax? It is a cruel hoax because it helps pharmaceutical companies and HMOs and it does not help seniors pay for needed medication. It is a cruel hoax because there is no guaranteed coverage because insurance companies just will not offer plans. Our plan would have guaranteed coverage for all seniors through Medicare. Their plan does nothing to lower prices and ours would have lowered prices by enabling Medicare to negotiate on behalf of seniors. It goes on and on. What is very important for me to note is that we spend annually $70 billion on doctors under Medicare, $140 billion on hospitals. It would be necessary to spend $90 billion on pharmaceuticals. It sounds like a lot of money, and it is. But it is a tremendous investment in the health of the American people. The committee on which I serve that funds the National Institutes of Health, we have seen the progress in science since the inception of Medicare. It is miraculous what these drugs can do. Would it not be great if seniors could have the opportunity to have funding for self- administered drugs that is prevented so far and that the Republican bill does nothing to improve? It would save seniors money. It would save the taxpayers money. Because these drugs are not only an adjunct to care and to hospitalization, they are a substitute for it. It would improve the quality of life, it would save the taxpayers money, and it would go a long way to restoring the dignity to our seniors which we owe them. Every family in America, Mr. Speaker, is just one accident or one diagnosis away from sadness not only in terms of what it means to physical health but in terms of economic security. We have an agreement with the American people that their health is part of the strength of our country. Access and affordability are linked. Access to affordable prescription drugs is central to the health of our senior population. We owe them better than a debate on a sham bill that has no guarantee. It is a suggestion but not a guarantee. It is not a prescription drug entitlement under Medicare as what is promised and should be promised to our seniors. Again, it does nothing to address the issue of cost. Every senior in America deserves the respect and dignity of economic and health security. The Republican bill is a cruel hoax on them. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, 37 years ago when Medicare first came into existence, there was a big fight over it. The Democrats wholeheartedly supported it. The Republicans opposed it. They still oppose Medicare. Over the years, they have made statements to that effect. Newt Gingrich when he was Speaker said that he would like to see Medicare, in his words, wither on the vine. And the Republican leader of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) said that Medicare should be no part of a free world. In the debate in the Committee on Rules last night, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) referred to it as a Soviet-style model, what the Democrats were proposing. A Soviet-style model. They did not support it then. They do not support it now. It is no wonder they have proposed this cruel hoax on America's seniors. To pretend they have a prescription drug benefit that is a guarantee is simply not true. They offer no guarantee, merely a suggestion. The Republican bill does not contain any defined premium or assurances that prescription drugs will be affordable. In the one State where such a program exists, the monthly premium is $85 per month. That is in Nevada. Less than one-fifth of the estimated cost of Medicare beneficiaries over the next 10 years will be covered in this bill. The Republican bill does not provide guaranteed access to the drugs seniors need or access to their local pharmacy. If we had been allowed to present a substitute tonight, which this rule prevents, the Democratic substitute would have provided a guaranteed, affordable prescription drug benefit for all seniors that will amount to an entitlement under Medicare. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) said before this is optional; it is not mandatory. He said that himself on the floor here. Mr. Speaker, imagine a situation where we could have prescription drug benefits for all of our seniors, the quality of life that it would produce, and the cost savings to our budget.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this sham bill which is a cruel hoax on the American people, especially cruel to America's senior women who raised our families and deserve better.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Homeland Security Information Sharing Act of 2002 is before the House. Let me begin by complimenting the chairman and ranking Democrat of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, Mr. Chambliss and Ms. Harman, for the work they have done on this legislation. In the weeks and months after September 11, they have been tireless advocates for ensuring that barriers to information sharing between federal, state, and local officials be eliminated. This legislation is an important result of their leadership. It also has benefitted greatly from the work done on it in the Judiciary Committee through the guidance of Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Democrat Conyers, and the efforts of Mr. Weiner. The bill directs the President to develop procedures for federal agencies to share information with state and local personnel, ensuring that any systems set in place have the capability to transmit classified and unclassified information as needed to respond locally to any terrorist threats that may arise. It is important to note, too, that the legislation is flexible, providing the President broad guidelines within which to design information sharing mechanisms, but leaving to him many of the mechanics of how best to do so. It also requires the President to report back to Congress in 1 year on whether additional changes are necessary. Thus, this bill sets up a framework that is workable within any homeland security architecture that may be established this year. This important measure will strengthen the Nation's ability to prevent future terrorist attacks. I urge its adoption by the House.

Ms. PELOSI

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

Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I had a question about the prescription drug bill.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, and with all due respect to the majority leader and his capacity, I hope that he will convey to the Republican leadership the displeasure of the Members in the minority, and really I think we speak on behalf of the American people when we say that the work that we do on this floor is very important. The public needs notice as to what we are doing. A schedule was put forth that we would have votes this morning so that we could notify Members who are doing their work in their committees. That was turned upside down. Now we come to the floor and the majority is asking for a recess to take up the very important issue of trade promotion within an hour. We are coming back in an hour. Is that what the gentleman said, at 2 p.m., in 55 minutes? In a matter of minutes we are now notifying Members that the majority wants to bring the rule on the trade promotion to the floor, turning upside down the schedule for the rest of the day. It is not just the minority that is disserved by this unprofessional approach to our schedule. It is the general public and those who follow with interest and have public opinion about the work of Congress in the people's House. So if the gentleman would convey the displeasure of the minority in the manner in which this important issue is being treated and how this schedule has turned into such a haphazard arrangement at will, with no consultation, about these very important issues. Now we are going to have a vote on fast track. Could the gentleman shed some light as to when the majority may bring up the prescription drug benefit bill?

Ms. PELOSI. The debt limit?

Ms. PELOSI. When does the gentleman think the prescription drug legislation will be coming to the floor?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the information that the gentleman has been willing to provide. I think it is important for both sides of the aisle to remember that the legislation and the issues that we are dealing with are not our private personal property. The American people expect and should demand more transparency than what is happening in this House. What is happening in this House is we are moving to a much less democratic way of discussing the issues. I am not speaking to what the gentleman experienced 8 years ago, because the gentleman knows that when the Republican majority came in, part of the Contract on America was to close down debate on this floor; to eliminate many options available for debate for the minority. So this is yet again another example.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and for his brilliant arguments against this outrageous rule, which I rise not only to oppose but to implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to disassociate themselves from. This is not a rule proposed by the Grand Old Party. This is not about Republicans in our country. This rule is outrageous. It is a rule that limits freedom in this, the people's House. Every child in school learns how laws are made. They visit here, this temple of democracy, and yet what is happening here today is to shred that book. American people think of this as the people's House, where issues and policies are debated, a marketplace of ideas. They do not think of it as a place of bait and switch. This House voted on a bill; I opposed it. It won by one vote, but it would be the House's bill to go to conference. Because the majority did not like how the other body treated this same legislation on trade promotion, they decided that they would usurp the power of this House and give that power to one person to go to the Committee on Rules and have over 50 pages of changes on a 191-page rule, that by passing the rule my colleagues are deeming those provisions passed, provisions that have never been debated and considered in this House. We might as well tear up the book on how a bill is passed in terms of process, in terms of precedent, in terms of policy. This is a very dark day for the House of Representatives. We had all hoped, many of us, that the bill would come back in the form we could have a great amount of support for, to give the President trade promotion authority. Instead of doing that, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has made matters worse with this outrageous procedure and this outrageous bill. We are the model of democracy to the world, to the world. The world is watching what we do here. Young children study what we do here; and instead of being an example, we are a place where today freedom and democratic debate are being greatly diminished. It is no wonder the gentleman from New York has no speakers on this rule. It is no wonder that in the course of the debate many people spoke up to defend the minority position and only two people could speak in favor of this rule. It is an embarrassment to this House, and it should be an embarrassment to the Republican party. Why do we not want to have this debate in the light of day instead of just by stealth into the Committee on Rules and on to this floor? Because this is a disgrace and a disservice, a disservice to American workers. It deprives them of the debate on their health benefits, on workers' rights. We can come together in a bipartisan way. I implore my colleagues to reject this outrageous rule. Vote no.