Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. You were asking a question. You were challenging.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield so I can answer the gentleman's question?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because it takes another giant step, a big step in the Republican march toward fiscal recklessness that has characterized their performance in the 107th Congress. The majority has done everything possible to hide, hide from the American people the fact that this rule allows the second largest increase in the Nation's debt limit ever. The Republican tax cut has already driven the Nation back into deficit spending. As a result, every penny of this back-door increase in the debt limit will come from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. We all agree, Mr. Speaker, that additional resources are needed to meet our Nation's defense and homeland security needs. We all support that, Democrat and Republican alike. As the senior Democrat on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I understand full well the investments that are necessary for a strong response to the ongoing terrorist threat must be met. However, I must say shame on the Republican majority for hiding their raising of the debt limit and their raid on Social Security and Medicare behind our legitimate need to protect our forces and to protect our country. It is possible to fight terrorism and put forth a fiscally responsible budget, but the Republican leadership has failed to do so. Again and again we have heard excuses from the majority that they attempt to explain the dramatic shift from surpluses to deficits and the raid on Social Security and Medicare trust funds that has resulted. A wartime budget, a recession, forecast errors, the list goes on. The question remains, where is the plan to get us out of this mess? Why should we sign a blank check to pay for the Republican tax cut by raiding Social Security and Medicare? Last year, the majority said they had an economic plan that would pay down the maximum amount of debt possible and promise to protect the entire Social Security surplus. Today, they are requesting the second largest increase in the debt limit in our Nation's history to continue their raid on Social Security and Medicare. We have to have an up-or- down vote on their stealth plan to mortgage our children's future. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority leader for that report, and I just would like to inquire more specifically about the timing of some of these bills on the floor. When will the bioterrorism conference report and the Afghan assistance bills be considered on the floor, more specifically?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, yielding further to the gentleman, I would like to know if there is any other legislation that the majority is considering for floor consideration next week.

Ms. PELOSI. Would the gentleman tell us if there are going to be votes next Friday.

Ms. PELOSI. Wednesday morning for the bioterrorism conference report and then after that the Afghan aid?

Ms. PELOSI. On what day would the supplemental appropriations bill be considered?

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

Ms. PELOSI. And the Afghan bill, I am sorry I just did not hear the ending?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

Ms. PELOSI. Would the gentleman shed some light on the kind of rule that that supplemental might be considered under.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for next week. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentioned that there are some conferences going on now. Could the gentleman tell us what conference reports might also ripen by next week to come to the floor?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, I did not support it, because I thought the bill was harsh to newcomers to our country, and some of those provisions have been corrected over time due to the leadership on this side of the aisle. The gentleman's colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), earlier referenced that in the farm bill there would be food stamps for immigrants, yes; again, an initiative from this side of the aisle. So there has been some of the harshness removed from the provisions of the earlier welfare reform bill and, I may say, during the Clinton administration, a thriving and dynamic economy that indeed lifted up our economy and lifted many people out of poverty.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this important Democratic substitute that is on the floor today. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues refuse to allow the Democrats to bring an amendment to the floor which would talk about child care, which is one of the most serious deficiencies in their bill. It is loaded with deficiencies; but if I could talk about one, it would be child care. The Democratic substitute gives women and their families the tools to leave poverty behind. It gives women access to job training, education, and the chance to make better lives for themselves and their families. It gives the States flexibility to implement the best approach. It focuses on real work and helps families escape poverty and achieve permanent employment. The Republican bill that is on the floor not only short-changes the important component of child care, which is essential to women lifting themselves out of poverty, it also foists on the States additional funding requirements to implement the requirements of H.R. 4737. In my own State of California alone, a $2.5 billion addition in costs to California, costs we can ill afford in a time of deficit, and that is required by this bill. But I want to talk again about child care. The complete missing link in lifting people out of poverty and putting people to work is the answer to the question, Who is going to take care of the children? We all talk about family values here; and we are all committed, both Democrats and Republicans alike. But why is that not reflected in the Republican bill? The Democratic substitute puts five times more resources to really enable women to get educated, to work, to lift their families out of poverty. I urge a ``yes'' on the substitute and a ``no'' on the Republican bill.

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

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and I thank him for his leadership on this very important issue, for calling to our attention the distinction between the bill before us today, which we will all support, and what we could really be doing for widows in our country who are on Social Security. Social Security is one of America's proudest achievements in social policy. No other program has brought so many people out of poverty, enabling millions to live with dignity. For millions of senior citizens, it is a lifeline. Unfortunately, the lifeline is severed for many when a spouse dies. H.R. 4069 takes a few small steps to improve benefits for widows, but its remedies leave millions of widows behind. The gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) has introduced legislation that comprehensively addresses this need. However, the Republican leadership did not follow the regular committee process and Democrats had no opportunity to strengthen the provisions of this bill on the floor today. Given what the Republican budget does to the Social Security surplus, the small steps forward being proposed today are even less adequate. Both parties promised that protecting Social Security would be the top priority. Yet the Republicans' budget breaks that promise by spending $1 trillion of the Social Security surplus over the next 5 years. The Republican plan to privatize Social Security would cost another $1 trillion over the next decade. Democrats have asked repeatedly for the opportunity to debate the Republican privatization plan and last month on this floor, it does not even seem like it has been last month, it seems like just a couple of weeks ago, every Democrat voted for a motion to say that the Republican proposal to make the tax cuts permanent could not proceed unless the Congressional Budget Office said that those tax cuts would not raid the Social Security Trust Fund. Every Democrat voted for that. Every Republican voted against it. The looming retirement of the baby boom generation means that we cannot irresponsibly push this issue aside for another day. This debate, like all debates on Social Security, has a disproportionate impact on women, who live 6 to 8 years longer than men on average and constitute 60 percent of Social Security recipients. Women continue to earn less on average than men and are less likely to have an employer-sponsored pension plan. Thus, the benefit structure of Social Security, which partially corrects disparities in income, is particularly important for women. Women are also more likely to work part-time and take time out of the workforce, 14 years on average, to raise their children and to care for ailing parents or spouses. As a result, they have less time to save for retirement. Social Security must be protected for the elderly women who rely on it for their financial survival, and the concerns of women must be a priority in the ongoing discussion about how to preserve Social Security. That is why, of course, I will vote for what is on the floor today because approximately 120,000, 140,000 women will benefit, but let us not leave the millions of other widows behind whose needs would be addressed by the Matsui legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong opposition to this resolution. But first, I must thank our colleague, the Gentlelady from Nevada, for her outstanding leadership on Yucca Mountain. She is a champion for her state. She has said she would lay herself down on the railroad tracks to prevent nuclear waste from coming into her state, and I know she would do it. Mr. Speaker, every day, the President and the Republican leadership claim that they want to keep the federal government out of people's lives and empower states with the flexibility to govern themselves. Yet today we are going to override the veto of a governor and go against the express wishes of the people of Nevada. The President has broken his promise to the people of Nevada. Before his election, he promised that the decision whether to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would be based on sound science. The science is not sound. The GAO has identified more than 250 significant technical issues that still need to be resolved before going ahead with Yucca Mountain. Mr. Speaker, many Yucca Mountain supporters say: ``We have to put this waste somewhere. Get it out of my neighborhood and put it somewhere else.'' I want to remind my colleagues that moving it out of your neighborhood won't solve the problem. As long as your local nuclear power plant is running, there will always be nuclear waste in your neighborhood--the hottest and most dangerous waste, the waste that just came out of the reactor core. And transporting the waste puts many more communities at risk of accidents and terrorist attacks. Nor does Yucca Mountain solve our long-term waste storage problem. By the time the repository opens, we will have enough waste to fill it up, and we'll have to start over again, looking for another site. We need to choose a different path. We need to develop clean, renewable energy sources that do not produce lethal waste that will endure for hundreds of thousands of years. Mr. Speaker, when we make this decision today, we should associate ourselves with the aspirations of a state, protect the environment of our country, and do the right thing, and vote against this resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Will the gentleman also shed some light on when you think the welfare reform bill will be considered on the floor?

Ms. PELOSI. And the defense authorization the gentleman said will be Thursday?

Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek further clarification from the gentleman. Can I detect from your comments that there will be no votes on Friday for sure?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask for this time to inquire as to the schedule for next week, and I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for the information.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, today as we are engaged in this very sad and difficult debate on this floor of the House, there is an ongoing tragedy in the Middle East, and indeed, we mourn the loss of life on both sides of the conflict. Yes, the U.S. and Israel have had an unbreakable friendship based on our shared commitment to peace, stability and democracy. A secure Israel can only prevail if there is peace in the Middle East. Less than 2 years ago, Israeli and Palestinian leaders met at Camp David, and we were hopeful of an agreement that all issues of permanent status, including the establishment of a Palestinian state and a secure State of Israel would be resolved. Prime Minister Barak made a generous and historic proposal. Chairman Arafat missed that historic opportunity when he failed to seize it and to negotiate a peaceful settlement of the Middle East crisis. We must return to that effort sooner rather than later. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians can afford to abandon the search for peace. The United States must lead at this critical time. We know that when the United States is involved, there is less violence in the Middle East. Terrorism and suicide bombings must not be the price that is paid for a free society. The goal of terrorists is to instill fear. They kill not just to destroy lives but to change the way people live and the way a country thrives. In order to build a better future for his people, Chairman Arafat must become a viable partner for peace. It is only through honest negotiations, not through violence, that the Palestinians can achieve their goal, which most of us support, the creation of a Palestinian state. That is why I am pleased that the resolution before us today calls for the international community to provide humanitarian assistance to Palestinians, and the United States must be a strong part of that. We must build upon the efforts of the heroes who have built the foundation for peace. We must honor the legacy of the martyr for peace, Prime Minister Rabin, and work for a secure Israel and for peace in the Middle East. As I said, that can only happen with a secure Palestinian state. In the spirit of Rabin, we must be guided by his words, ``No more bloodshed, no more tears.''