Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Slaughter, for her leadership and determination for support of the arts. Since the earliest days of our Republic there has been an appreciation for the arts in the lives of Americans. Indeed, our second President John Adams wrote to Abigail Adams in 1780: I must study politics and war that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics, philosophy, geography and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain. How far we have strayed from that aspiration of our second President when the House of Representatives supports the arts by a slim margin and a meager budget. Skimping on the arts is a false economy. The arts are their own excuse for being--to paraphrase Emerson. The arts are important to our economy creating jobs as well as ideas and works of beauty. And the poet Shelley once wrote that ``the greatest force for moral good is imagination.'' With the challenges facing our nation's children it is clear that we need all of the imagination they can muster. We must encourage their creativity--for itself and for the confidence it engenders in them. Children often express themselves through the arts more effectively and sooner than through other endeavors. The confidence they find through the arts enable them to face other academic challenges more effectively. It enables them to face life's challenges with more. Support creativity, support imagination, supports Ms. Slaughter's amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, this bill is a bad bill because it fails to adequately fund housing assistance for impoverished working men and women and it ignores America's housing crisis. Despite the shortage of affordable housing that plagues many cities and rural communities, this bill fails to fund America's tremendous housing needs. Even worse, this bill cuts several billion dollars from last year's budget for many important affordable housing programs. Why did the Republicans design a bill that cuts housing assistance for low-income working men and women? Why do Republicans ignore America's obvious shortage of affordable housing? Quite simply, they cut housing assistance to pay for tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. In March, they voted $123 billion in tax breaks for the best-off one percent of all taxpayers--those with an annual salary exceeding $319,000. Just last week, the Republicans voted to repeal the Estate Tax--a giveaway of another $50 billion to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. This GOP plan would provide about $10 billion to America's wealthiest 400 families. In sharp contrast, this bill denies housing assistance to Americans living in Section 8 housing and public housing, who on average earn an annual $7,800. It denies housing assistance for senior citizens on fixed incomes. It forces working men and women to choose between housing, health care, food, and other basic needs. This GOP budget is unlivable for us in San Francisco. Compared to President Clinton's requested budget, HUD estimates it reduces housing assistance for San Francisco by $10.9 million and denies affordable Section 8 housing vouchers to 458 San Francisco families. It denies housing help to 234 San Francisco residents who are homeless or are living with HIV/AIDS. This GOP budget is also unlivable around the country. At the full Appropriations Committee, the Ranking Democrat, Rep. Mollohan, offered an amendment to invest an additional $1.8 billion that would provide assistance across the country. I voted for this amendment. The Committee Republicans rejected it. This amendment would have increased investments to build new affordable housing; provide new affordable housing vouchers; provide housing to the homeless; operate, build and modernize public housing; promote community economic development; provide housing and services to seniors, individuals with disabilities, and individuals with HIV/AIDS. Americans need this assistance and this bill falls short. I oppose this Rule because it restricts our opportunities to improve the underlying bill. The GOP denied us a fair House floor vote on our amendments to increase housing assistance. Our amendments could have transferred this into a more bipartisan bill that President Clinton may have signed. Since Clinton has promised to veto the current bill, the GOP's decision ensures a veto and ensures we are wasting our time. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to the Electronic Signatures in Commerce Act. This legislation will revolutionize how financial services are provided by allowing business transactions to be started and finished on-line; bringing together technology and the economy. In addition, S. 761 increases the efficiency and ease of conducting financial business. Imagine applying for a home mortgage or a car loan on-line. S. 761 not only eliminates unnecessary paperwork, it will save consumers time when they are applying for loans, insurance policies, and other financial services. No more waiting in line, no more being put on hold on the telephone, and no more waiting for applications to be mailed to you. Just the push of a computer key and consumers are able to complete and mail their applications to their financial institutions. Due to State restrictions, only 1 percent of all mortgage and insurance transactions nationwide occur on-line. By removing these restrictions and allowing consumers to sign contracts on-line through an electronic signature, we can increase the number of automated transactions and reduce the heavy clerical and storage costs of paper files. I am pleased that language was added to S. 761 which established ``consumer consent'' provisions requiring that consumers be given a choice as to whether they want to receive legal notices and records electronically or in writing. In order to prevent fraud, consumers would also have to grant or confirm their consent electronically before they would be allowed to receive electronic notices and records. More Americans than ever before are relying on the Internet to conduct business transactions and manage their personal finances. S. 761 will play a vital role in e-commerce and in helping the United States to maintain its role as a technology leader in the global economy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on final passage of S. 761.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mario De La Torre on the occasion of his retirement after forty years as a member and leader of the Laborer's International Union of North America. Mr. De La Torre's life is an example of the American dream fulfilled and he deserves recognition for his able service to his fellow workers and the San Francisco community. Born in Mexico, Mario came to the San Francisco Bay Area as a young man. He immigrated to America in search of the opportunity that he knew would come from hard work and determination. At first he worked a series of jobs, including as a dishwasher and a cook, but he soon found his calling in the construction trades. At age twenty-three, he joined the Laborer's International Union of North America Local 261 and went to work as Laborer for various contractors. Mario's leadership abilities soon became clear and he rose to the position of foreman. Mario served as foreman for prominent companies where his talents drew the notice of the San Francisco Housing Authority, and he was recruited to assume a leadership role with the agency. By 1978, Mario had firmly established himself in the community and with his fellow Laborers. Well-respected by his peers, he was appointed that year as Field Representative for Local 261. He then began a second phase of his career as a leader in San Francisco's labor community. Over the next twenty-one years, Mario held several different positions for the laborer's Local 261, serving as an Executive Board member, a Vice-President, the Business Manager, and eventually President. In all of these capacities, he executed his duties with distinction. As is the pattern with Mr. De La Torre's life, his able work earned him the recognition of others. In 1991 he was selected for the post of Vice-President of the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. In 1993, he joined the Executive Board of the Northern California District Council of Laborers and later served as Secretary/ Treasurer of the Council. During this time, he also became a Trustee for the Aggregates and Concrete Association and a Delegate to the San Francisco Labor Council Mario is a leader within our community, serving as President of the Centro Social Obrero, as the Secretary/Treasurer of the Labor Council of Latin American Advancement, and as an Executive Board member of the Mexican-American Political Association. Mr. Speaker, I join Mario's four sons, Mario Jr., Oscar, David, and Hugo, in wishing Mario a very happy and healthy retirement. He truly is an American hero.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Committee on Commerce, an expert on health issues, and a health professional before she came to the Congress.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1-3/4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a distinguished member of the subcommittee. (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for yielding and for her outstanding leadership in bringing this amendment to the floor. This amendment is about addressing misplaced priorities of this committee and this Congress. It attempts to repair the damage this bill does to initiatives that protect the health and welfare of seniors and other vulnerable populations. This amendment is necessary for a simple reason. The Republican majority is more focused on providing a trillion-dollar tax cut that largely benefits the wealthiest Americans than on providing needed funding for the neediest Americans. The DeLauro amendment is necessary because it provides an additional $119 million increase to the community health centers above the House level to provide affordable care to the uninsured and underinsured. I think every Member of this House respects the work of the community health centers, because nearly one in five working adults lack health insurance, and half the working Americans with incomes less than $20,000 could not pay their medical bills last year. Poverty, homelessness, poor living conditions, geographical isolation, lack of doctors, and lack of health insurance pose insurmountable access problems for many people at higher risk for serious and costly health conditions. Community health centers address these access problems through the delivery of comprehensive primary and preventive services, the type of services not typically offered by traditional private sector providers to at-risk people. Health centers do it cost effectively. Health centers focus on wellness and early prevention. At a time of great economic prosperity, we must not forget those who are not enjoying good financial times, those who do not have the health coverage for themselves or their families. The community health centers fill a need we cannot ignore. As I said earlier in the day, if we would cut the budget, cut the tax break for the wealthiest Americans by just 20 percent, it would afford us the $2.5 billion to address the initiatives put forth in these amendments. Unfortunately, the Republican budget resolution passed by the House created a framework for failure. We are trying to redress those failures in this amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a distinguished member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education of the Committee on Appropriations, and a person who is an expert on health policy.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman knows that I had no opportunity to have an offset of the $1.7 billion. All I am saying is give this the same treatment as has been given to other Republican priorities by making a budget cap adjustment so that this can be afforded in this bill.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if I may, since the gentleman characterized my remarks, if I may?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman lodged a point of order on the basis that this is outside the budget allocation. On that score, he may be correct. But the fact is that despite the expressions of priority for the funding at the National Institutes of Health, which the chairman has very sincerely made and others have made in this Chamber, we had other choices in this bill. In fact, if this is of the highest priority, why was it not given the same status that other Republican priorities are given in this bill? As we know, there is a $500 million budget adjustment to accommodate $500 million of other spending in this bill. That could have been done for this $1.7 billion and we could have ensured, guaranteed, given peace to the American people that their health and that the research to ensure it to be protected. Instead, the only thing protected in this bill is the tax break for the wealthiest people in America. That is the decision that Members have to make. It is not about this being fiscally responsible. We all want to be that. Indeed, our alternative Democratic budget resolution had this $1.7 increase and it was fiscally responsible. Two things, Mr. Chairman. Because the distinguished chairman has said he is calling a point of order because this is beyond the allocation of the budget, it could be protected just the way this other funding had a lifting of the budget, had an adjustment of the budget figure. Secondly, I would say that if we are not going to go down that path then it is not the priority we say it is, and we have to answer to the American people for that. Technically, on the point of order, the rule protects the wealthiest 1 percent at the expense of the National Institutes of Health, and I concede the point of order.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for presiding over this very respectful, I think, debate. We have acknowledged the leadership of our chairman and our ranking member in supporting the highest possible funding levels for the National Institutes of Health. We have recognized that despite the priority that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) gives to the National Institutes of Health, that the budget allocation does not allow him to put the additional $1.7 billion in the bill which keeps us on track of doubling the NIH budget in 5 years. Members have shared their personal stories about themselves and their children, and pointed to the need for us to invest in this research. There is no argument about that. But when Members say that we are politicizing this debate by saying because we have a tax cut because we cannot afford this funding level for NIH, they are being political. The fact is, bad budget numbers necessitate a bad appropriation. If we did not have the tax cut, we could afford the NIH funding. It is that simple. That kind of decision is what people send us to Congress to make. We must recollect the values of the American people, which say that it is a good investment to invest in basic biomedical research. It saves lives. It adds to the productivity and the quality of our lives. This is the most fiscally sound vote a Member can make is to invest further in the National Institutes of Health to save lives, to create jobs in the biomedical industry, and to help us balance our budget by having less money have to be put out because of illness, loss of work days by people who become sick or disabled. I urge my colleagues to think in a fiscally sound way and support the additional appropriation for the National Institutes of Health.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very, very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished ranking member of our subcommittee and the ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, who, along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), has been a champion for increased funding at the National Institutes of Health.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), another distinguished member of our Subcommittee of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 13.

Ms. PELOSI. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am introducing this amendment to add $1.7 billion to the NIH budget. That would bring us to an increase of $2.7 billion in this bill, which will keep us on track for doubling NIH budget in 5 years. The distinguished chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), has long been a champion and advocate for the National Institutes of Health. It is a sad thing then to see in this bill that we cannot stay on track. Why can we not? We cannot stay on track because of the bad budget numbers that have reduced a bad result in this bill, as I said, when we talked about this during general debate, when they asked the question why do so many excellent mathematicians come out of MIT, because so many good mathematicians go into MIT. Why, conversely, do so many bad results come out of this appropriations process? Because a bad budget bill went into this appropriations process, because that budget agreement, that budget bill insists on a huge tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. If the majority were willing to cut that tax break for the wealthiest 1 percent in our country by 20 percent, we would have more than enough money to cover all of the amendments that we are talking about in the course of this debate on this legislation; whether it deals with afternoon childcare or worker training or increasing the funding at the National Institutes of Health; whether we are talking about having more funds available to stop substance abuse in our country. The list goes on and on, but who benefits instead? The wealthiest 1 percent in our country. Indeed, that same wealthiest 1 percent would benefit from increased investments at the National Institutes of Health. Members all know that the National Institutes of Health almost has a biblical power to cure every person in America, rich or poor, who is one episode, one diagnosis, one accident away from needing access to excellent health care. The research at the National Institutes of Health can find cures. We have far more scientific opportunity and applications for excellent grants than we are able to meet with appropriate funding. Mr. Chairman, again, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have both been long-time champions of increased funding at NIH, but that cannot happen in this bill, sad to say. In fact, in the bill before us it says that we have a $2.7 billion increase, recognizing the need that my amendment spells out; yet a provision in the back of the bill limits the amount appropriated each of the accounts to the level requested by the President. I will have more to say on this, Mr. Chairman, after we hear from some of our other colleagues. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who is a former prosecutor, member of the freshman class, who knows of what she speaks on this substance abuse challenge in our country.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, to speak to this amendment, and would say to our distinguished chairman that if we did not have to have a very expensive tax cut, we would have enough money to meet the treatment needs in our country to reduce demand for drugs.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, in fairness to the gentleman, since he is being so generous with his time, I want to use the first phase of my time from him to praise him for his leadership as chair of our subcommittee.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the $600 million relates to what we think we could hopefully get passed here. If I just may say, with the gentleman's yielding, just to clarify what is here on the floor, when I offered this amendment at the time of the emergency supplemental, when no offset would have been required, it was rejected by the majority in the full committee saying that we should go through the regular order, even though drug use in America is an emergency, and that is why we were having an emergency supplemental to send military assistance to Colombia. It was declared an emergency. So then when they said go the regular order, we go to full committee and were defeated, and are now bringing it to the floor to point out the imbalance in our values, where we will give a tax cut instead of giving drug treatment to reduce drug consumption in America. So the $600 million relates to that.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a champion fighting against substance abuse in our country.