Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, we thank the gentleman, and we appreciate the opportunity to move forward on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, for the last 5 years Republicans have stood by as the compensation of chief executive officers of major corporations has soared. At the same time, the salaries of middle-class Americans have stood absolutely still. The minimum wage has not been raised since 1997, almost a decade. In that time, Congress has voted to increase its own pay nine times. If this Congress can get a raise, the American people ought to be able to get a raise. Had it been merely adjusted just for inflation from its level in 1968, those earning minimum wage would be making $9.05 instead of $5.15. Instead, its purchasing power remains at its lowest level in half a century. Madam Speaker, millions of full-time minimum wage workers and their families live in poverty. Sixty percent of minimum wage workers are women. They are adults over 20 years old. On average, minimum wage workers contribute over half of their total family's income. Who can live, much less raise a family, on $10,700 a year? It is not just the cost of milk and bread that has increased by 25 percent since it was last raised, Madam Speaker. Four-year public college tuition has increased 77 percent, health insurance 97 percent, gasoline 136 percent. Today, it takes a full day's pay for a minimum wage worker to pay for a single tank of gas. Is there any clearer indication that the quality of life for those earning minimum wage in this country has decreased? Is there any more obvious sign that these families are headed in a downward spiral? The cost of everything is going up, while their wages are spiraling down. For Democrats, this is a moral issue. We believe we should be raising the minimum wage, one of the best tools we have to keep families from falling off an economic cliff in this country. Even more than that, we believe something very elemental, that people who work full time in America should not be poor. We believe that their families should not be poor. The fact is that despite the fact the economy grew 4.2 percent last year, its best statistical performance since 1999, very little of this growth is reaching many families. Indeed, over the past 5 years, productivity as measured by real GDP per hour worked has risen by about 14 percent, as the real wages of non-managerial workers have risen less than 2 percent. Who is getting the 12 percent? So when people look at the statistics like that and wonder where is the rest of the money going, all they need to do is to look at their Congress emptying the Treasury by passing massive estate tax cuts for the likes of millionaires and billionaires. Madam Speaker, by raising the minimum wage to $7.25, this Congress can say that hardworking families have a right to share in some of this economic growth, that this country is not about the survival of the fittest but about opportunity and opportunity for all. Lastly, Madam Speaker, there is a direct corollary between small business growth and the minimum wage. I think the findings would surprise many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Between 1997 and 2003, small business employment grew more in States with a higher minimum wage, 9.4 percent, than in the Federal minimum wage States where it only grew 6.6 percent. That tells us that raising the minimum wage is not only a matter of economic security for families but for businesses and for our economy as well. So, Madam Speaker, I will oppose this rule, because I believe the American people need to know where their Representatives in this Congress stand when it comes to the minimum wage. They need to know, are you for economic security for families or are you against it? Do you stand with America's families or do you stand against them? That is the choice before this Congress today. I oppose the rule.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, The Washington Post reports today that middle-class neighborhoods are evaporating in America. It says that it is happening because the gap in this country between the rich and poor is rising at an alarming rate, making it harder for families to raise their children. And what we consider today will only speed up that process: an estate tax cut giving an enormous tax cut to the richest 10,000 estates in the Nation, no one else. And don't let them fool you, it is not about small business, it is not about family farms; the 10,000 richest estates in the Nation. It will cost $762 billion in the first 10 years alone, this at a time when we are spending between $5 billion and $8 billion per month on the war in Iraq. Meanwhile, our productivity as a Nation has risen by about 14 percent as the real wages of nonmanagerial workers have risen less than 2 percent. So when people look at the statistics, they wonder where is the rest of that money going? All they need to do is look at this Congress and the Republican leadership of this House emptying the Treasury for the likes of millionaires and billionaires. Democrats believe this country is not about survival of the fittest but opportunity for all. Democrats understand the pressures on middle- class families: rising health care costs, education, home heating oil, gas prices. We believe we could be raising the minimum wage, one of the best tools we have to keep families from falling off that economic cliff. It has not been raised in almost a decade. Had it been adjusted just for inflation since 1968, those families would be making $9.05 instead of $5.15. And if this Congress can get a raise, the American people ought to be able to get a raise. But the Republican majority is afraid to let this House even have a debate, a choice, between yet another tax cut for millionaires and a wage increase for families. They are afraid of that real debate that Americans want to have about their economic future. The American people want us to walk in their shoes, understand their lives. They don't want to see millionaires and billionaires be able to get a tax cut that will help to bankrupt this Nation. What they do want to see is their wages increase. We need to raise the minimum wage and oppose this rule.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker after 22 years of service and smiles, Frank and Mary's Sub Shop--a popular eatery in my childhood neighborhood of Wooster Square--has closed its doors. A family owned and operated business opened by my dear friends Frank and Mary Florenzano, Frank and Mary's fast became a local landmark and a must stop for New Haven visitors. The dream of Frank Florenzano, Frank and Mary's has been located at the end of Wooster Street, New Haven's most predominant Italian- American neighborhood for over two decades. One of Wooster Street's greatest attractions to residents and visitors alike are the numerous Italian-American restaurants that line the street. From Sally's and Pepe's pizza houses, to Libby's Ice Cream and Consiglio's, to Tre Scalini and Frank and Mary's, Wooster Street is home to the very best of Italian cuisine. Open daily from 7 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., Frank and Mary's always had a steady stream of customers--many times with lines out the doors and onto the sidewalk. One of its most famous customers was lifestyle icon Martha Stewart whose order of eggplant with grilled onions, peppers, and mushrooms became one of the most popular menu items. Known for its variety of hot and cold subs made fresh daily-- especially the steak and cheese, eggplant and grilled veggies, and meatball--Frank and Mary's quickly became a New Haven institution, leaving an indelible mark on our community which will always be remembered by friends and customers. I am also pleased to have this opportunity to extend a special note of thanks to Mary Florenzano and her family for their many years of special friendship to myself and my family. Frank and Mary's has been one of my mother, Luisa's, favorite lunch spots for many years and, like so many others in this Italian-American neighborhood, she will be sure to reminisce about the great food, conversation, and atmosphere that Frank and Mary's always offered. Frank and Mary's was more than a great sub shop; it was the dream of Frank Florenzano and represented the very spirit of the American dream. Together, the Florenzanos made that dream a reality. Owned and operated by the Florenzano family since its opening, Mary, her daughter Lori, and niece Nicole have worked hard to keep Frank's dream alive since his passing in 2003. Though this local treasure will be missed, it is with my heart-felt congratulations that I rise today to extend my very best wishes to Mary Florenzano and her family for many more years of health and happiness. I have no doubt that they will enjoy great success no matter what their future endeavors may be.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, due to a death in my family, I missed a series of suspension votes, the vote on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill and votes on the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 251, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 252, ``aye'' on rollcall 253, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 254, ``no'' on rollcall No. 255, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 256, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 257, ``no'' on rollcall No. 258, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 259, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 260, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 261, ``no'' on rollcall No. 262.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is to my great regret that at key moments like this the President of the United States does not seek to unify the country. He does not use these moments to bring people together, to strengthen us. He does not rally the country behind our men and women in arms and in harm's way. We applaud our troops. Thank God for their willingness to sacrifice for our Nation. I take every moment to support them and their families. But the President and the Republican leaders, within moments of our soldiers' valor in eliminating one of the worst terrorists, is rushing for some political advantage, some way to hurt the Democrats and raise the President's poll numbers. Our country deserves so much better. The President wants this Congress to simply applaud his current course in Iraq, which is an indefinite, open-ended commitment of U.S. troops in the middle of a sectarian religious war. By the President's own words, 3 more years, with generals now talking about 10 years and permanent bases. I want to be clear. I do not want to stay the course with this policy which will make us less safe, undermine our military, help the terrorists, cost many thousands of lives and cost another trillion dollars. This Congress has never held the President and his administration accountable, even when there were no plans. This President, more than any other, has politicized this war, ignoring the advice of the military at every step, from General Shinseki's call for more troops to General Casey's admission that our troops' presence was inflaming violence. They have imposed political judgments from ideologues at the White House at the expense of our military's best advice. And this Congress supported the White House politicians, not the generals when our course was set. This Congress supported the White House politicians when they did not give our troops the body armor and Humvee armor they needed. Now, when the President says just support the politicians in the White House one more time, they are here with this resolution. What our troops need is a policy that is good for America and for our military. Being bogged down in Iraq indefinitely will make us less safe. All of the countries in the world and the region and the Iraqi people need to hear that America will redeploy over a responsible period. The current course allows countries a free ride at the expense of American troops and taxpayers. A policy of responsible redeployment will force others to play their role. No one on this floor is for a precipitous withdrawal, and the President's statements are reckless, political and a disservice. We all agree, as did both bodies of the Congress, that 2006 would be a turning point. The White House politicians have ignored that resolution. I support a redeployment of our troops to meet critical security needs over the next 12 months, with a significant reduction by the end of 2006. Others support redeployment by the end of 2008, and some by the end of 2007. But we all believe America's interest and our troops are served by a new course. So I ask the President to change. Why not speak to the country's better virtues and unite the country? We want you to succeed. We should work together for a stronger America.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to lay something out very clearly here. First of all, the notion that these are folks who are going to compete equally with other corporations that do not have the same tax advantage has been decried by the GAO, the Government Accountability Office. Let me repeat their commentary. They found that contractors who go overseas for the ostensible purpose of reducing their tax obligation to the United States, and I quote, ``They can offer a price that wins a contract based more on tax considerations than on factors such as the quality and the cost of producing goods and services.'' They have a tax advantage because they do not pay what they are supposed to pay in taxes in the United States. In fact, let me be very clear again. This amendment simply continues what current law is. It extends the provision that was accepted in conference last year. These companies have not suffered anything with regard to their bottom line. As a matter of fact, they are making profits hand over fist, and they are taking advantage of the tax loophole. Yes, they make that decision; but the decision is ours as to whether or not we allow them to come back and to compete for Federal contracts. I do not have a preference for what they chose. Under the law, they can do what they want. But they should not be allowed to pretend to be an American company when it is time to get contracts but then claim to be an offshore company when the tax bill comes. I also want to point out that this does not jeopardize and does not affect existing contracts, just as it did not this year. This is about the future. I also want to make a point that the 2004 tax bill did not apply to companies who already have moved offshore. There are more than 25 such companies that currently operate with a tax advantage that their U.S. counterparts do not enjoy. So do not bring up the 2004 tax bill because it is not applicable. Mr. Chairman, what we want to do is have companies be good corporate citizens. We are asking them to pay their fair share of taxes. That is what this is all about. If we did more to discourage companies from setting up just post offices overseas to reduce their tax burden, we would have more funding available in this bill for other purposes. The notion that countries are going to retaliate, it is almost laughable. Barbados is going to retaliate against the United States, the Cayman Islands, Antigua, Bermuda? It is truly laughable that that would be a part of this debate. Again, why do we want to encourage companies to go offshore to set up a post office box and not pay their fair share and their obligation in taxes to the United States? So, I would just say to my colleagues, we have an opportunity here again, and people voted on this last year. I hope those who voted ``yes'' will continue to do so and that some will have a change of heart, understanding what the nature of this is all about. Let's have people, if they want to go offshore, that is our system. They can do that at the moment. We can take a look at closing tax loopholes at another opportunity. What they can't do is to come back and feed at the Federal trough and not pay their fair share of taxes like everyone else in this country is obligated to do. Let's keep the loophole closed. Let's not reopen it at a time of record deficits when we can least afford to do it. This is a matter of patriotism and not profit. You want to do something for our friends and our troops overseas, close this loophole. Be a patriot and support this amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. This amendment would simply continue current law by extending a provision that was accepted in conference last year. It would prevent the Departments and the agencies under this bill from using any funds to contract with American companies which have incorporated in Bermuda, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Antigua, and Panama to reduce their tax obligation to the United States. The Homeland Security Department operates under a similar ban. Recent data shows that despite costing our government $5 billion in lost tax revenue, corporate expatriates will reap more than $15 billion in Federal contracts in the coming years. Four of our top 100 Federal contractors have incorporated in tax-haven countries. One of them actually holds a contract with the IRS; the agency charged with collecting taxes is contracting with a company that is determined to avoid paying them. Sixty-six percent of the companies that hold government contracts but are incorporated in an overseas tax haven pay no Federal taxes whatsoever. These companies have no business being rewarded by getting new business opportunities with the Federal Government. The GAO has determined that these companies have an advantage when they compete for Federal contracts. It found that the contractors who are corporate expatriates can ``offer a price that wins a contract based more on tax considerations than on factors such as the quality and the cost of producing goods and services.'' In essence, the American people may not be getting the best product possible because of the loophole. The amendment will not affect existing contracts, just as it did not this year. It simply ensures that in the future we will favor good corporate citizens with contracts instead of companies who put paying American companies at a competitive disadvantage. Corporate expatriates have made a clear choice to leave this country to lower their taxes. It is up to us to say if they are going to manipulate the loopholes in our Tax Code, then they will no longer be able to reap the benefit of government contracts. In this amendment, we ask them to make a different choice.

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

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep gratitude that I rise today to join the United Way of Greater New Haven and the many communities which it serves in extending my sincere thanks and appreciation to my friend, Hart Deveroux Caparulo, as she celebrates her retirement after thirty-nine years of dedicated service. Though she will leave her position as Chief Professional Officer, I have no doubt that Hart will continue to stay actively involved and will always be available should our community be in need. Beginning her career with the United Way in her hometown of Charlotte, North Carolina, Hart has dedicated a lifetime to making a difference in the lives of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. Feeling that ``New Haven needed her most,'' Hart began as a Campaign Director where she started a number of new programs including a Leadership giving program and group solicitation in employee campaigns. It was this innovative and creative vision that led the Board of Directors to offer her the position of Chief Professional Officer--a position which she has held for the last decade. Under her leadership, the United Way of Greater New Haven has fundamentally changed the way it interacts with its communities and partners. Community engagement, strategic focus and an ever-growing passion to improve the quality of life for others is at the core of its mission. Perhaps the most impressive result of the organization's revitalized mission has been the collaborative work of Community COMPASS--a strategically focused campaign to improve the economic health of our region and reducing educational disparity. One of the many results of COMPASS has been the development and launching of the Success By 6 program which combines the efforts of a network of community partners to ensure children newborn to 6 years old are healthy, nurtured and ready to success when they enter school. It is programs like these, that thanks to Hart's leadership and vision, are now the core work of the United Way of Greater New Haven. In addition to her professional contributions, Hart has also been actively involved throughout the community. I would be remiss if I did not extend a personal note of thanks and appreciation for all the help that she has given to both myself and my office over the years. We have always known that we could count on her expertise and compassion. I wish her the very best as she moves on to future endeavors. We, as a community, owe Hart Caparulo a great debt of gratitude for all the good work that she has done on our behalf--every community should be so fortunate. For her invaluable contributions and the indelible mark she has left on the United Way of Greater New Haven, I am proud to stand today to recognize Hart Devereux Caparulo and to extend my deepest thanks and appreciation to her as she celebrates her retirement.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join the many family, friends and colleagues who have gathered to honor a very special woman, and my dear friend, Joyce Romanow, as she celebrates her retirement. After more than thirty-seven years of giving our young people the best educational opportunities possible, Joyce will leave the teaching arena to pursue her own personal goals. I often speak of our nation's need for talented, creative, enthusiastic teachers who are ready to help our children learn and grow. My dear friend Joyce is just that kind of educator. Throughout her career, she has touched the lives of thousands of children from elementary school to high school. Joyce began her teaching career in the town of West New York, located in New Jersey, where she taught second and third grade students, many of Cuban decent, for nine years. She then moved to New Haven, Connecticut and began teaching at Kimberly Avenue School at City Point. After consulting with colleagues, and thinking about her own personal teaching experience, she decided to become an English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) teacher-- working with some of our community's most vulnerable children. Here she had the opportunity to travel to many schools within the New Haven public school system, enabling the children of immigrant families to find success in the learning process based upon his or her individual needs and strengths. Naturally paired with the educational program, Joyce also focused on the importance of positive development of not only our children's intellect, but their character development as well. She has placed great emphasis on the importance of team work, providing a productive environment, and has been an outstanding role model. For the last five years, she has been an ESOL teacher at Hillhouse High School, working with high school students in grades nine through twelve. Although Joyce has enjoyed working with students at all grade levels, she has a special place in her heart for high school students. I know she will be sorely missed by her students, friends and colleagues at Hillhouse High School. Public education is the cornerstone of the American dream--leveling the playing field and providing every child with the opportunity to make the most of his or her talents. This is what Joyce has dedicated her life to doing for the past thirty-seven years. It is talented professionals like Joyce who truly shape the leaders of tomorrow. In addition to her outstanding teaching career, Joyce has raised an exceptional son Danny, whom I adore. She is certainly more than a friend--she is family. Words cannot begin to express my appreciation and gratitude for the tireless support she has shown to me and my family over the years. And so, it is with deep admiration and affection that I stand today to join her son Danny, her family, friends and colleagues in extending my sincere congratulations to Joyce Romanow as she celebrates her retirement. Joyce is a remarkable woman whose generosity and compassion has left an indelible mark on so many children whose lives she has transformed. Though she will be enjoying her retirement years, I am certain that Joyce will continue to keep a hand in teaching--her extraordinary dedication and kind heart making all the difference. I am happy to extend my very best wishes to her for many more years of health and happiness.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I rise in support of this legislation. I support this bill because it is vital that the House stand in opposition to governments that pursue their objectives by spreading terror. Supporting such a government is fundamentally at odds with the values that make our nation great. At the same time, we must find ways to maintain humanitarian assistance and avoid a spiral into human suffering in the Palestinian territories. This legislation attempts to navigate that narrow course between providing assistance to the Palestinian people and rejecting the hatred that embodies Hamas. It is not an easy balancing act, but this bill does a good enough job to merit passage today. The United States is the single largest financial supporter of the Palestinian people. We provide $245 million per year in humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians. And let me be clear: That support for the Palestinian people can and should continue. But we can do that--and should do that--without supporting the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. This legislation does create an important exception that allows funds to go to the PA if they are dedicated to promoting democracy and human rights efforts. It also affords the president some flexibility to continue the flow of this assistance should he judge it to be in our national security interest. While I have real reservations about entrusting the current president with this authority, I nonetheless appreciate the importance of this provision. At the same time, I have several concerns about H.R. 4681, and believe that some modifications are needed before this legislation can become law. First, I am concerned that the bill does not account for future changes in the policies of the Palestinian Authority--whether it is Hamas or Fatah or someone else. For instance, should Hamas decide to become a responsible partner in the Middle East peace process--an unlikely prospect to be sure--or should a new government take its place, there is nothing in this legislation that would allow us to restart aid or lift the restrictions placed on them by this bill. With that in mind, I believe this bill should have included a sunset provision allowing Congress and the White House the chance to review in a year or two the impact that this legislation has on the PA and on the Palestinian people. While I do not foresee Hamas renouncing terror, recognizing Israel's right to exist, or accepting the Road Map as the basis for future progress in the Middle East, I do believe that Fatah and other parties may yet have the chance to govern the Palestinian Authority. Almost 15 years after the Oslo accords were signed, accepting these basic principles should not require extraordinary policy shifts. Indeed, support for these measures should be a basic view of any political party seeking to run the Palestinian Authority. The legislation before us today also could be strengthened by reducing some of the onerous reporting requirements that well-known non-governmental organizations will face if they are to continue to provide direct humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people. I fear that we are unduly burdening organizations like Catholic Relief Services, whose record of providing social services to individuals in need without regard to politics or ideology is exemplary. This bill also has some provisions that are either redundant or run counter to the goals of the bill. For example, there is no need to prohibit PA government leaders from receiving U.S. visas, since Hamas members already are unable to receive a visa. Further, limiting the ability of non-Hamas government officials to travel to the United States could actually hamper the ability of our government to meet, advise or otherwise support non-Hamas members of the PA. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is my very strong hope that as this bill moves through the legislative process, the provisions that allow the Secretary of State to withhold our UN dues in certain cases will be dropped. This section is neither warranted nor wise. And so there is room for improvement in this legislation. But the intent of this legislation is sound. And by passing this legislation today, the House can clearly reject Hamas and the terror that has ravaged the Middle East for too long. For more than a half-century, a cornerstone of our nation's stand in support of Israel, our closest friend in the Middle East. And it is that I will support this bill. It could be a better bill, and as it moves to a possible conference with the Senate, I hope it will be, so that Congress can speak with one voice on this issue.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join the community of Stratford, Connecticut as they pay tribute to an outstanding member of their community, Joseph DiMenna. After 51 years of dedicated service, Joe DiMenna will retire from his distinguished career in education. I have often spoken of our Nation's need for talented, creative educators ready to help our children learn and grow. Joe DiMenna has been just that kind of teacher and administrator. After receiving a Bachelor's Degree in education from Western Connecticut State University, Mr. DiMenna began his teaching career at the Eli Whitney School where he taught fourth grade. During his time as a teacher, he taught at a variety of levels as well as teaching Americanization and summer school in Bridgeport. Upon being awarded a National Science Fellowship in Geology and Astronomy, he spent a summer in class and field study at the Delaware Water Gap. Through his unique dedication to education, both for his students and himself, Joe DiMenna exemplified all that we look for in a teacher. After further pursuing his studies at the University of Connecticut and Southern Connecticut State University, Mr. DiMenna received his masters and sixth year degrees from Fairfield University. He would first serve as principal of the old Honeyspot School in Stratford where he oversaw the construction of the new Honeyspot School. On moving day, he joined with his students as they carried their desks from the old building to the new. Upon leaving Honeyspot, he would go on to serve as principal at Eli Whitney School, Chapel Street School, and Second Hill Lane School. Over the course of his 51-year career, Joe DiMenna has served with both integrity and distinction, earning him the respect of faculty, administrators, and Board of Education members. His dedication, commitment, and energy has touched the lives of thousands of our young people, helping to shape not only the foundation of their education but their character as well. We, as a community, owe Joe DiMenna a great debt of gratitude for all of his good work. I am proud to stand today to join his wife of 47 years, Frances, their two sons, three grandchildren, family, friends, colleagues and community members in extending my very best wishes to Joseph DiMenna as he celebrates his retirement. I understand that Joe and Frances plan to travel more extensively, opening new opportunities for learning and teaching. My very best wishes to them for many more years of health and happiness.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate the Amore Family as they celebrate the 50th anniversary of Jet Cleaners--the family owned and operated laundry and dry cleaning business which has become a local landmark in my hometown of New Haven, Connecticut. In August of 1956 came the opening of an innovative new laundry service which offered the families of New Haven 1-hour service. Gracing the outside of the new store was a high-tech neon sign and behind the counter customers would find Nicholas, Michael and Vincent (``Jim'') Amore--Jet Cleaners, aptly named for the fast service customers would come to know, was open for business. After operating the Chapel Laundry and Dry Cleaners for twenty-seven years, Nicholas Amore and his two sons opened Jet Cleaners with the vision of bringing fast, efficient service to their customers. Built on the corner of State and Trumbull Streets in downtown New Haven, Jet Cleaners would quickly become known for their dedication and vision. The Amore family were well known for looking to the future, so it was no surprise when they ensured they would be able to expand their business by leasing the adjacent space and purchasing the property across the street from the original plant. In the leased space, the Amores established the largest coin laundry in New Haven with 40 washers and twenty dryers. As the business continued to expand, Nicholas, Michael, and Vincent looked to build a larger plant in a new location across the street. Though founder Nicholas Amore would not see the opening of the new store, Jet Cleaners moved to its new home in 1966 where it continues to stand today. Family, friends, and customers brought a variety of plants to celebrate the opening of the new store which were placed in the counter area in front of the two large plateglass windows. Over the years, customers have left more and more plants and a large dracaena was even rescued from a local pub. Thriving in the steam-filled environment, their collection of greenery soon became the trademark of Jet Cleaners Three generations later, Jet Cleaners is still owned and operated by the Amore family. Michael Amore's sons, Mike, Jr. and Douglas took over operation in 1998 and continue the family's legacy. Customers of Jet Cleaners can experience the small touches each generation has made to the store. Today you still find the same dedication to fast, efficient customer service, the array of beautiful plants still meet customers as they enter the store, and Mike, Jr. and Douglas have continued to expand the business branching out into wholesale markets and becoming the first area dry cleaner to offer credit and debit card service. They have even opened a satellite store in Cheshire. Perhaps the most special contribution Mike, Jr. and Douglas have made is that which gives back to the community. In 1995, Jet Cleaners joined with WTNH Channel 8 to promote a Holiday Coat Drive which became the catalyst for future coat drives and a number of community service activities. I have always believed that our small businesses are the backbone of our economies. Jet Cleaners is a shining example of all that our small businesses can contribute--they not only provide a service to their customers, but dedicate themselves to making our community a better place to live and work. Today, as the Amore family and the New Haven community celebrate the 50th anniversary of Jet cleaners, I am proud to stand to congratulate them on this very special occasion and extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to them for all that they have brought to our community.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, the House of Representatives lost a giant this week. Robert N. Giaimo was a profound figure in this body, someone who represented the values, the dreams and aspirations of the people he represented. For eleven terms he served the Third District of Connecticut that I am now honored to represent. And as a fellow child of Italian immigrants from North Haven, Connecticut, he did so with distinction, with honor and with special purpose. During his 22 years in the Congress, 1959 to 1980, his contributions were as momentous as they were numerous. Serving during a time of great upheaval in this country, it was Bob Giaimo who led the first successful effort to end funds for the fighting in Southeast Asia. He co-sponsored legislation that led to the creation of the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, unleashing the creative potential of millions of Americans. And when the Congress decide it was time to get control of the Federal budget process, they chose Bob Giaimo to chair that committee which he did with integrity for 4 years. Bob's priority was always making sure that the work that we did in the Congress, the programs and the funding impacted those who needed it most. Madam Speaker, the legacy of Congressman Robert Giaimo lives on today in his former staff, some of whom went on to serve in the Connecticut State legislature. It lives on in the people he served in our district for whom he made opportunity real. It lives on in his successors, in the work that I do in the Congress. Our thoughts and our prayers are with the family, his daughter, B.L., and his wife, Marion. Bob Giaimo was an inspiration to so many and we will miss him. Just very, very briefly, I can recall being 8 years old when Bob Giaimo went to visit my parents, Louise and Ted DeLauro. He said he was running for the United States Congress and would they support his effort as they were involved in politics as well. They did support that effort. He won the race. I have in my possession, in my family's possession, a letter saying thank you to Louise and Ted DeLauro for their help in getting him elected. He reached enormous heights, yet he never forgot where he came from.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, drilling in ANWR brings us no closer to breaking our dependence on oil, even under the most optimistic scenario. Many of us have spent the last several years working to find ways to stem the hemorrhaging of factory jobs in this country. Nothing would do that like lowering the energy costs for our manufacturers, for our chemical and fertilizer plants. If we open ANWR, we tell our manufacturers that we are satisfied with holding the line. If we want to create more than a few good jobs and spur the economy on a scale that could rival what we saw in the 1990s with the rise of the Internet, we should not be debating whether or not to open ANWR to drilling. We should boldly invest in renewable energy everywhere in our country. We should look not to the past but to the future. We should vote ``no'' on this bill and ``yes'' to reducing our dependence on oil.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. On the IG report, and I quote: ``Nothing came to our attention during our visits to six States to indicate that they were not spending the funds for their intended purpose.'' If anyone wants to know, I have a list of all of the States and the amount of money they receive in grants every year from this program, and they will get nothing next year if we do not restore some funding. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman and applaud his leadership. Remote areas, 11 miles off the coast of Connecticut, 9 miles off the coast of New York. The LNG Broadwater facility, actually, the proposal, is a vessel roughly the size of the Queen Mary. One week after passing the interior bill which dedicated $1.8 million to cleaning up the Long Island Sound, we are now going to place this vessel in the Long Island Sound. Also, a 25-mile pipeline through the middle of what is prime ground for lobstering and for fishing. Further, the entrance to the sound might need to be temporarily closed when the LNG shipments arrive every few days, disrupting all other commerce that uses that passage. We are going to ask the Coast Guard to enforce the zone. They are already stretched thin, but they are going to have to patrol the LNG site, which will pose a new security risk. I will conclude by saying to you that we voted to protect the Long Island Sound and, without this amendment, who knows what other estuaries of national significance will be at risk of becoming our next industrial zone. Support the Bishop amendment.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would restore funding to the State Energy Program which the underlying bill eliminates, and it would happen by reducing the administrative funding for the Department of Energy to last year's levels. That means that the Department's administrative funds would amount to about $278 million. The administration thought this program worthy enough to propose an increase to $49.5 million from approximately $35 million last year. Essentially I am saying this amendment would simply fund this program at $25 million. The State Energy Program, it provides grants to States and directs funding to State energy offices. The States use these grants to address their energy priorities, program funding to adopt emerging renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies. States have implemented countless initiatives funded by this program that have reduced energy costs and have increased efficiency. Let me give you two or three examples. The Texas Energy Office's Loan Star Program has reduced building energy consumption and taxpayers' energy costs through the efficient operation of public buildings, saving taxpayers more than $172 million through energy efficiency projects. New Mexico, the State energy office is supporting an expandable renewable energy usage, tax incentives for hybrid vehicles, school energy-efficiency programs, technical assistance to the wind industry and expansion of geothermal resources. With the funding, New Mexico has been able to meet approximately 40 energy performance goals with an annual energy savings in millions, including an expansion in the use of ethanol and biofuels. My own State of Connecticut, the program supports 31 municipalities to help them make their schools and public buildings more energy efficient. The value of this program speaks for itself. It enables energy offices to design and implement programs according to the needs of their economies, the potential of their natural resources and the participation of their local industries. For every dollar we spend on this public-private partnership, we save $7.23, while almost $11 is leveraged in the State, local and private funds. That means by funding the program at $25 million this year, we could help save as much as $180 million just in fiscal year 2007. Mr. Chairman, helping States to carry out their own energy efficiency and renewable energy programs is an effort in which the Federal Government not only has a stake, it has an obligation. This is something we should be encouraging, not eliminating. I am asking my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. DeLAURO

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I won't take all of my time, I just want to lend my support to this amendment as a State in which we are seeing increasing efforts in terms of organic farming, and having visited those efforts, myself and understanding the concerns that they have in making these kinds of transitions with the kinds of movement of the American public that is moving in this direction. I just wanted to associate myself with the words of my colleagues and support the amendment.