Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, after discussing this amendment with the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee, I intend to withdraw the amendment. So I will not seek a vote. And I thank my colleagues for giving me a few minutes to discuss a very important issue. I believe that the issue of mental health services for our troops deploying or returning from combat is one that demands the attention of this body, if only for a few minutes today. And I know my colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, addressed this issue as well. My amendment would increase funding for the Defense Health Program by $10 million to establish a pilot program to provide in-person mental health assessments to servicemen when they deploy or return from combat. The offset is a reduction of $10 million in the 1990 BRAC account. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about ensuring that we do a better job for those men and women in our military in need of mental health services. Currently, upon the return from combat, our troops are given only a paper questionnaire with just seven questions about their mental health, and that is supposed to be enough to determine their mental health status. This is hardly sufficient for people who, for 12 or 18 months, have been constantly subjected to insurgent violence or the threat of insurgents attacks, or witnesses to horrific devastation and loss of life and, in many cases, will have to go back for a second or third tour. According to both veterans and mental health experts, this screening process leads to an under reporting of mental health problems. As the Surgeon General Kevin Kiley put it recently, and I quote, ``There's only so much we can do for large numbers of troops, and it is not like we wouldn't want to do more.'' That is what is so important is to be able to give the Defense Department the needed resources to do right by our troops. As General Kiley says, do more than a seven question paper questionnaire. With the number of Army suicides on the rise, the Army suicide rate last year was nearly 13 per 100,000 soldiers, the highest since 1999. We are simply are not reaching all those men and women in uniform who need our help. In fact, the GAO recently reported that only 22 percent of the servicemembers who might have been at risk for suffering PTSD were ever referred for further mental health evaluation. The report also found that ``DOD cannot provide reasonable assurance that OEF and OIF servicemembers who need referrals receive them.'' Given that, we should allow the Defense Department to test whether an in-person screening will make the screening process more effective and improve the likelihood of their receiving a referral to receive the mental health services they need. Recently, the Hartford Courant ran a series of mental health concerns facing our troops today, and I have distributed the series to every single office today. I strongly urge my colleagues to take the time to read it. The stories are poignant as well as tragic. It includes serious allegations that the Defense Department has deployed troops who are mentally unprepared for combat and that all too often antidepressant medication is the only form of treatment that fragile servicemembers can get while they are on the front lines. We must take the time to assess the emotional well-being of our troops. Would we send a young man or woman into combat if they have suffered severe physical wounds? We would not. By the same token, we should not send them to fight if they are suffering severe emotional wounds. The Defense Department has made great strides in the past 30 years in testing and understanding PTSD and other forms of combat stress. We need to do more. I hope someday this body will get the opportunity to provide the Pentagon with the adequate resources to continue to improve its mental health awareness. I thank Chairman Walsh and I thank Mr. Edwards for their willingness to let me speak on this amendment. They are among the strongest supporters of our military that we have in this Congress. I know they share the concerns, the concerns of so many in this body about this issue. I look forward to continuing my work with them on this important issue. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, it is about families. It is about families across this country who are wrestling with record-high gas prices. This Congress not only has the obligation to do something; but with this amendment, we have an opportunity to do something. National average price of gasoline per gallon, double what it was when President Bush took office. Oil executives making off with half billion dollar retirement packages. We can all agree that we have better things to do with as much as $80 billion of taxpayer money than giving it to the oil companies for nothing in return. $80 billion is how much the GAO says we could simply be giving away to the oil companies over the next 25 years if we do not change the royalty relief law. Royalty relief is not without its purpose. Prices are low; royalty relief can create a powerful incentive to remove more oil from the ground. Let's look at the prices. This is nothing more now with royalty relief than a giveaway to those who least need it. One Shell official, New York Times said the other day, under the current environment we don't need royalty relief. They sure don't. ExxonMobil, $36 billion last year. Record, historic. Shell, $22.9 billion. It is about the people in our communities, the people that we represent that are taking their savings and they are putting it in their fuel tanks. These folks are taking their money. They are dealing with their stock options. They are paying down their debt, and they are taking high salaries. It is time we took away this opportunity to do that. And I will tell you that my colleagues on the other side that want to talk about contracts, the Federal Government is given the right to terminate contracts without cause. It is in contract law; it is called the termination of convenience of the government. So we can do this. Let's do it with this bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues are familiar with the Kenny Rogers song which says you have to know when to hold and know when to fold. I sure would like to be in a poker game with the Republican moderates. They fold before they even see their cards. They got nothing out of this budget deal, and they are going to tell us how wonderfully they did. It is nothing but a promise, and it will be a promise that is not kept. My colleague from Florida talks about the bottomless pit of spending. Talking about bottomless pits, let us talk about $8 billion in subsidies to the oil industry. Let us talk about another $7 billion in a windfall and not having them pay a royalty tax for the oil they take out of the ground. We just waived it for all of them. And they get a prescription drug bill which has nothing but massive subsidies for the pharmaceutical industry and for the insurance industry. That is where the bottomless pit is. And you have a tax cut bill, $70 billion, and you cannot find it in your heart to do something for low-income families? I can tell you what people in this country don't know; that if you make $11,000 or less, you are not eligible for a child tax credit. But we see that some of the wealthiest people in this Nation get one very, very big tax break. Let us take a look at what happened between last week and this week when the majority failed to muster the votes on the budget. Are we no longer staring down the barrel of a $2.2 billion in education cuts, $8.6 billion in cuts to veterans services, and $18.1 billion in health care costs? That is exactly what we are looking at. And I will tell you, we could pay for this budget's $3 billion shortfall in education, health and workforce training programs with that tax cut's $4.8 billion in breaks that helps corporations like GE and Citicorp increase their profits overseas. You know, Republicans today are wondering why the American people have lost all faith in their leadership. The goal of the budget ought to be to benefit the common good. That may seem like a novelty to this Republican majority, but the country is crying out for that leadership.

Ms. DeLAURO. The gentleman from Florida should not continue to fool the American public. There is no new funding in this bill for health, education and other programs.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, in my hometown of New Haven, Connecticut, friends, family and colleagues will gather to pay tribute to one of our community's most outstanding citizens and a dear friend of mine. I am proud to stand today and join the Connecticut Anti-Defamation League as they honor Dr. Alvin D. Greenberg with the 2006 Greater New Haven Torch of Liberty Award. Our communities would not be the same without the efforts of individuals whose work truly benefits our families and neighborhoods. Each year, the Connecticut Anti-Defamation League presents the prestigious Torch of Liberty Award to an outstanding leader in the community, recognizing their unique commitment and dedication. Alvin is a remarkable reflection of the true spirit of community service. With extraordinary compassion and generosity, he has touched the lives of thousands of families throughout Greater New Haven through both his professional career and volunteer efforts. Currently serving as the President of Temple Medical Center, Administrator of Yale-New Haven Ambulatory Services Corporation, Director of the Neuro-Rehabilitation Center and as a consultant in neurosurgery at Yale-New Haven Hospital, Dr. Greenberg continues to remain an active member of our medical community. His commitment and dedication to his patients and all of those who receive services at these various facilities is unparalleled. Throughout his distinguished career, Dr. Greenberg's integrity, collegiality, and expertise have earned him the respect not only of his colleagues, but of members of the medical field across the state. In addition to his professional contributions, Dr. Greenberg has dedicated countless hours to a variety of local organizations. The Union Trust Bank, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation of Greater New Haven, and the Shubert Performing Arts Theater are just a few of those across the region who have benefited from his work. It is not often that you find individuals who so willingly devote both their professional and personal time and energies to improving the quality of life for others. In his lifetime of good work and compassionate service, Dr. Greenberg has done just that. I am honored to rise today and join his wife, Barbara; his three children, family, friends, and colleagues to pay tribute to my good friend Dr. Alvin Greenberg for the many contributions he has made to Greater New Haven. I cannot think of a more appropriate honor than the Torch of Liberty Award to recognize the generosity and commitment Alvin has shown to our community. He has truly made a difference.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today, in my hometown of New Haven, Connecticut, friends, family and colleagues will gather to pay tribute to one of our community's most outstanding citizens and a dear friend of mine. I am proud to stand today and join the Connecticut Anti- Defamation League as they honor New Haven Police Chief Francisco Ortiz, Jr. with the 2006 Distinguished Community Service Award. We owe a great debt of gratitude to those who dedicate themselves to public service, especially those who serve as law enforcement officials. These brave men and women face dangers and challenges that few of us can imagine. Over twenty-five years ago, Francisco (Cisco) Ortiz joined the New Haven Police Department and, over his career, worked his way through the ranks. In his time with the department he has been assigned to every major unit in the Department serving with both integrity and distinction. There were very few that were surprised when he was selected as Chief of the Department--a role in which he has served for the last several years. Even more inspiring than his leadership in the Department has been the diversity of roles he has taken on in the community. Volunteer, board member, department liaison--Chief Ortiz has been a strong and vocal advocate for the families and residents of New Haven. Working with such organizations as the Community Consultation Center, Easter Seals/Goodwill Industries, and the New Haven Labor Day Road Race, Chief Ortiz has demonstrated a unique compassion and concern for our community and his efforts have touched the lives of many. Chief Ortiz is also a member of the Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee, the Connecticut Puerto Rican Parade Committee, and the Connecticut Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run. He is also a Senior Fellow and one of the founders of the Yale Child Study Center's Development/Community Policing Program--a program which I have been proud to be a part of. His active participation in our community as a professional, volunteer, and advocate has made all the difference. Each year, the Connecticut Anti-Defamation League presents the Distinguished Community Service Award to an outstanding leader in the community, recognizing their unique commitment and dedication. Chief Ortiz is a remarkable reflection of the true spirit of community service. I am proud to stand today to join his family, friends, and the many colleagues and community members who have gathered this evening to extend my heart-felt congratulations to my dear friend, Chief Francisco (Cisco) Ortiz, Jr. as he is honored with this very special award. It is a fitting tribute to his many years of service to our community and his continued dedication to improving the quality of life for others.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. If the gentleman would yield, I have no stock in oil and gas companies.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, might I say to my colleague on the other side of the aisle on the issue of refineries, ExxonMobil has said that they will not build refineries, that it was not part of their business plan. The issue of switching from MTBE to ethanol was something that was known a year and a half ago or more, and the decision, they knew it, they could prepare for it, they wanted it to happen, and they did not make the preparations to make that switch-over. Mr. Speaker, as Americans struggle with $73 barrels of oil and gas prices that could reach $4 a gallon in the coming months, we have heard every excuse in the world for why these prices have skyrocketed. We have been told that refineries are being victimized by overbearing environmental regulations and that Americans simply do not understand the laws of economics and that the market is simply responding to high demand. Well, it does not take an economist to recognize that the oil companies are making out like bandits. In 2005 alone, ExxonMobil, the Nation's largest oil company, earned more than $36 billion in profits, profits that were 31 percent higher than the year before. Not far behind is Shell, with $22.9 billion of profit; BP, with $19.3 billion of profits; and Chevron, which took in $14.1 billion. So what is this Republican majority proposing? To usher through more tax cuts for oil companies in their next round of corporate tax giveaways. This only hours after this House finally relented and voted to give the FTC the authority to investigate price gouging, something Democrats have been calling for for the last 8 months. Why on earth we would be offering still more tax cuts to an industry that is enjoying record profits is beyond me. Even the President has acknowledged that we should be paring these gifts to industry back. It is interesting to note that he did not know in the energy bill that he signed that they had $9 billion in the energy bill that he signed; and, in fact, his administration gave a $7 billion windfall to the oil companies by waiving their royalty payments to the Federal Government. This majority is not doing what it should be doing in this bill. What they are providing is more tax cuts. With the Larson motion, which would prohibit oil companies from using an accounting gimmick to reduce their tax obligations, we have an opportunity to say enough. No more financing $400 million executive retirement packages with taxpayers' dollars. With soaring budget deficits, war and a host of needs here at home, we have better things to do with the taxpayer money than to line the pockets of this majority's political friends and an industry reaping historic profits from American families. Let us get that process started by passing the Larson motion.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, and I thank my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, for his leadership on this issue--it is one of the critical moral issues of our times. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. It is long overdue, and I hope that we remember that passing this bill is not the end of our country's moral obligation to Darfur--merely a starting point for our nation to begin addressing some of the serious problems in that part of the world. This legislation arrives on the floor of this House not a moment too soon--at time when famine and war have already killed between 200,000 and 400,000 people and displaced over 2 million more Sudanese. It is nothing less than a humanitarian disaster--and unfortunately one that appears to be getting worse. Among the many tragedies is that, put simply, it did not have to be this way. With the end of the civil war in southern Sudan, these last six months ought to have been an opportunity for progress in Darfur. Instead, we have seen only more war, more famine, more despair. According to the latest reports, the latest wave of attacks has found thousands of people being chased from dozens of villages by government- backed militias, with death-squad attacks on civilians in Darfur and violence now spilling over into neighboring Chad as well. And while the African Union forces--numbering only 7,000--are doing what they can, they simply do not have the resources to carry out such a broad mission--particularly with the Sudanese government appearing to be actively obstructing their work. Indeed, one senior U.N. official recently predicted ``massively increased mortality'' unless effective peacekeepers are installed. And unfortunately, that has proven increasingly difficult. After two years of sanctions and countless resolutions adopted by this Congress and by the United Nations, the government of Sudan continues to defy the will of the international community. That makes our action here today ever more important--extending the embargo against Sudan and giving the Treasury Department the authority to freeze the assets of known supporters of the genocide. Also critical are this legislation's provisions to get the U.N. back into Darfur. Just last week, the government of Sudan blocked the United Nations' top emergency aid official from visiting the western Darfur region. That is why this bill directs the president to use our nation's position on the U.N. Security Council to resolve this matter. In my view, the best way to end this bloodshed and this human suffering is for the government of Sudan to immediately let the U.N. in to safeguard the residents of Darfur. But should the U.N. not be allowed in, this bill also grants the president the authority to summon NATO and get it more involved--an authority we must not hesitate to use. NATO's readiness to provide more support to the African Union may well prove critical. Mr. Speaker, we have arrived at a critical juncture. It has been 12 years since the world saw the horror of genocide in Rwanda--a half- century since we saw it on the European continent. Each time, the world has said ``never again,'' only to stand by as it happens again and again. Today, the House is giving the Administration the tools it needs to act to stop the killing in Darfur--it is a step forward, but certainly not be the last. Let's pass this legislation and ensure that the people of Darfur can return to their homes and live their lives in peace.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, 1 month ago the American people stopped to remember the third anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war. We thought first and foremost of the selflessness, patriotism and heroism by our troops, our National Guard and Reserves. We also remembered those who have been wounded in battle, and who need our support more than ever. And we never forget those whose service meant giving their lives for their country. Americans are united in this remembrance, but so, too, Mr. Speaker, do Americans understand that we need a new direction in Iraq, that Congress must take up its responsibility and demand that our policy be based on honest assessments from our own military. For too long the U.S. military's leadership has been ignored and stifled by a White House motivated by its own political and ideological agenda. Indeed, when General Eric Shinseki told Congress in 2002 that we would need almost 400,000 troops to ensure a short and peaceful occupation, administration officials said he was wildly off the mark and quickly forced him into retirement. Earlier this year, when General Casey conceded that U.S. forces were stretched, the Pentagon rushed to issue a clarifying statement. And when six former generals who worked closely with Secretary Rumsfeld called for his resignation, the President wasted no time reiterating his unyielding support for Mr. Rumsfeld. Mr. Speaker, I wish I had confidence that this White House and Secretary of Defense could look beyond their ideological agenda to do what is right for our national security and our troops, but I do not, which is why I believe the responsibility to take the lead on Iraq now falls to the Congress. Yes, Congress was delinquent for too long in its oversight responsibilities in the prosecution of the war, writing blank checks to the administration with no requirements for progress or accountability to the taxpayers, but in declaring that 2006 should be a year of transition in this year's defense appropriation bill, and in finally requiring regular status reports from the administration, Congress at last showed that it might be serious about handing over the security of Iraq to the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, 4 months into 2006, as insurgent violence occurs daily, that process has still not begun, with no regular hearings, calls for accountability or investigations. The result is that American troops find themselves increasingly in the crossfire of warring religious groups. Just last weekend eight more U.S. troops lost their lives. And the President now says our troops will be in the middle of this Iraqi civil war at least until 2009. Mr. Speaker, as we go into the fourth year, it is well past time for a firm plan to redeploy our troops. This is consistent with the views of our troops, nearly three-quarters of whom say 2006 is the year to succeed or reassess. It is the view of the top U.S. commander in Iraq, General George Casey, who told Congress, our troops are ``one of the elements that fuels the insurgency.'' So the starting point for new policy is to be serious about making 2006 a year of transition, and signaling to all of the parties in Iraq and the region that they must take responsibility. We must hear the advice of our own military about how to best reduce troop levels without fear of reprisal from the administration. We must have a timetable for a phased reduction of our troops, ensuring a minimal presence within 12 months, with most redeployed by the end of 2006. We must expand the training of Iraqi military and police units, and demand that they be linked to a reduction in American forces. We must establish a contract, as we did in Bosnia, requiring the key powers in the region, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan, to be more actively involved in security and reconstruction. Iraq's neighbors must understand that they have a stake in its success. We should redeploy our National Guard to help with homeland security efforts. In coping with disaster, bird flu or another terrorist attack, our National Guard must be prepared. But a third of Louisiana's Guard was in Iraq during Katrina, slowing relief efforts with deadly consequences. And over 500 of my State's National Guard troops are deployed in Afghanistan, because the regular Army remains in Iraq in such large numbers. And with respect to Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent since U.S. troops were diverted to Iraq, we should refocus our efforts there and resume our work to stabilize a country that has provided the base for global terrorism. Taken together, this new policy will produce a minimal but flexible U.S. troop presence in Iraq within a year. That is how we best maintain a strong military, while making America more secure. Our troops deserve a Congress that takes its oversight responsibilities seriously, not one that acts as a rubber stamp for a White House who is clearly off track. Our troops are bearing the burden of our indecision. We owe them a full and open debate and a new direction. It is not a matter of partisanship, but a matter of patriotism of our country's stewardship and security.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, it is breathtaking what President Bush and congressional Republicans will say or do when it comes to skyrocketing gas prices. In discussing tax breaks for oil companies, the President said yesterday, and I quote, ``Record oil prices and large cash flows also mean that Congress has got to understand that these energy companies don't need unnecessary tax breaks.'' Coming from the single greatest champion of tax breaks for oil companies that the Oval Office has ever known, that is rich. The President has spent the last 5 years fighting for these tax breaks that he now disavows. Last year's energy bill, which he signed, had $8 billion of corporate welfare for oil companies. For him to suggest now that he opposes these tax breaks is, in my opinion, dishonest, cynical, and the height of hypocrisy. When it comes to solving the energy crisis, President Bush and his Republican Congress have no credibility. Had they spent the last 5 years working to reduce demand by raising fuel standards, rolling back the billions of dollars in tax breaks and royalty relief to the big oil companies; and if he were about promoting alternative fuels, as Democrats have proposed, we might now today be on the road to energy independence. Instead we are bracing ourselves for $4 gas prices. The American people expect leadership from their President and Congress, Madam Speaker. They are not getting it from either.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this budget contains massive deficits for our children and unaffordable tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of middle-class families. Particularly damaging are the cuts to critical services in education, workforce development, health, veterans services, and environmental protection. It fails to include an additional $7 billion so that in fact we can fund education and health and the other services in the same way that the Senate, by a vote of 73-27, voted a few weeks ago, funding for the Community Services Block Grant, Low-Income Heating Assistance, National Institutes of Health and Pell Grants, programs that touch virtually every community health center, hospital, school district, and employment center in the Nation. Last week, I proposed an amendment that would restore this $7 billion when the Budget Committee met. It was rejected by this Republican majority on a party-line vote, and what we are left with are cuts that would cut cancer research by $40 million. We tell our kids today, you need to have a post-secondary degree; you no longer have the luxury of just having a high school diploma because we exist in a global economy. What they will do is to eliminate more than 40 education programs, all Federal vocational and technical education programs. They freeze the Pell Grant. Education has been about opportunity. They will deny the opportunity of our youngsters to be able to get a college education. That is what this budget does. These are Republican priorities. They are not the American priorities. It is a misguided and it is an immoral budget, and we ought to support the Spratt substitute.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, women understand the difference this budget can make in improving their lives and, their families' lives. Everyday, whether it is ovarian and breast cancer research, college loan assistance, or nutrition program, for low-income seniors, women are reminded how our sense of opportunity is in so many ways inseparable from our Nation's health, education and labor infrastructure. But when it comes to this budget, our investment in each of these areas is cut. Pell Grants, Head Start, housing programs, child care, even the president's own No Child Left Behind education program--all fall victim to Republicans prioritizing tax cuts for the few over investments in the future of all Americans. Republicans had an opportunity to show their commitment to women and families when I offered an amendment that would have simply restored $7 billion of funding to our communities, our community health centers and hospitals, our school districts and one-stop employment centers. It would have restored funding for lifesaving research at the NIH-- research that saved this woman's life nearly two decades ago. This funding would have impacted every woman and her family at all levels of income in one way or another. But Republicans turned it aside on a party-line vote. Mr. Chairman, women deserve a budget that supports them--a Congress that supports them. And as women are increasingly realizing, they are getting neither.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, only 2 months after Congress cut $12 billion in student loan assistance, this Republican majority wants the American people to understand how much they appreciate the vital connection between higher education and solving the most pressing problems of our communities and the country. But let me be clear--they don't. If this majority understood the extent to which access to a quality education is inseparable from our economic prosperity, national security, and civic health, they would not be failing to make college loans more affordable with this bill. If this misguided majority believed that a quality college degree were the cornerstone of the American dream, opening the door to job opportunity and professional fulfillment, they would not be freezing the authorized level of the maximum Pell Grant at just $200 above current levels through 2013. As if the cost of college will only rise by $200 in the next 7 years--over the next two decades, the cost of a public university is expected to rise to $50,000 for a public university and more than a quarter million dollars for a private school. When this historic law was first passed in 1965, President Johnson promised that, ``a high school senior anywhere in this great land of ours can apply to any college or any university in any of the 50 states and not be turned away because his family is poor.'' This legislation turns its back on that commitment, Mr. Chairman. And so, the American people should see this legislation for what it is--not only a missed opportunity but also an assault on America's middle-class and a grave threat to our global competitiveness. Indeed, one recent international test involving mathematical understanding found that American students finished in 27th place among the nations participating. This as low-wage employers are creating the bulk of our new jobs--in one recent period, Wal-Mart and McDonald's created 44 percent of all new jobs. If the Republican majority in this Congress was serious about strengthening our higher education system, this legislation would have adopted some of the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm--one of the central recommendations of which was to make American universities the most attractive setting in which to study and get a degree. In contrast to this legislation, the Democratic substitute would cut interest rates in half for the borrowers most in need--effectively lowering the cost of college by $2.4 billion for students and their families. Our substitute would offer the 3.4 percent fixed interest rate to students who take out subsidized loans this year. And it would incentivize service in the fields of nursing, for three teachers in bilingual and low-income communities, librarians, and first responders. Mr. Chairman, the critical role colleges and universities played in the last century's economy will pale in comparison to the role they will play in this century's. And this legislation should recognize that--not turn back the clock on access and affordability.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is very simple. It repeals the comprehensive liability protection for vaccine manufacturers by the end of the fiscal year, September 30. I believe some sort of liability protection or indemnification is necessary and appropriate to encourage the development and the manufacture of some measures that are going to deal with a pandemic flu. I would support reasonable language. Whatever our respective views are about the wisdom of liability protection, the manner in which this particular provision was included in the defense appropriation bill last year is indefensible. Last December, legislation granting liability protection to the vaccine manufacturers was unilaterally inserted into the defense appropriations bill after the conference had closed, after an understanding verbally and in writing that no legislative liability language would be inserted into the bill. It was done in the dead of night, absent any careful consideration, no public hearings or debate among the Members of this body, nothing. It was the work of one person and one body. It should never have been allowed. Further, there are now no means for victims who are seriously injured to seek compensation, unlike other Federal vaccine programs: swine flu, smallpox, children's vaccines. Usually when government grants liability exemptions to companies, it provides some form of relief for the consumers who are injured. As we further discovered about this bill, the liability protection was granted not only to vaccines being developed to prepare us for an avian flu outbreak but also for a far broader range of potential vaccines and medical equipment, just about anything else the HHS Secretary deems appropriate. This sweeping, unchecked power granted to a Cabinet Secretary is unprecedented, to my knowledge, also sweeping power granted to the pharmaceutical industry. The Congress ought to consider carefully before ceding its authority to this or any administration. Under this law, manufacturers and their suppliers, distributors and their employees would be shielded from a lawsuit, even if they turned out to be negligent or reckless. None of us would agree that a negligent distributor, someone who ruined a vaccine by mishandling it, for example, should be held harmless. Do we want to say a drug maker who knows a product is defective but chooses to sell it anyway is above the law? We face a frightening prospect that millions of Americans could contract this deadly flu. Our first priority ought to be inoculating the American public from a deadly strain of flu and not inoculating pharmaceutical companies from the threat of legal liability. This provision has serious implications. All my amendment seeks to achieve is to grant the full Congress and the committees of jurisdiction the opportunity to fully consider the policy implications of this issue. It accomplishes that by sunsetting comprehensive liability protection to the drug manufacturers beyond this fiscal year. It gives us plenty of time to have the appropriate parties debate this issue thoroughly. Lastly, let me say a word about the rationale for making this amendment in order, because I understand that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are preparing to challenge it on the basis of it being in violation of rule XXI and rule XVI, and that is certainly their right. But before they do, let me ask, where was the concern for the rules when a Member of the other body unilaterally rewrote liability law in this country? Given the complete abdication of procedural norms which made this provision's enactment possible, which we have seen time and time again in this institution, I would ask the majority, spare us the lectures about the need to respect House rules in this instance. Mr. Chairman, the House should have a full debate on this measure and an up-or-down vote. Let us give this institution the opportunity to reclaim the dignity, and constitutional authority, that the majority renounced in allowing one Member to usurp the power of this body, to bolster himself on this critical issue. That is what this amendment is about. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. I would just conclude by saying that this is about inoculating the American public against a deadly flu. We are not in the business and we are not charged with inoculating the pharmaceutical companies from the threat of legal liability. That is not why we were sent to the United States Congress. We are here to protect the public interest and the public trust. Let us do our job. Let the appropriate committees of jurisdiction deal with this issue; have the companies, have the consumers bring people together. That is simply what this legislation and my amendment is all about.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

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

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, every time this body considers a bill on how we regulate the food of this country it is designed not to strengthen existing law, but to weaken it, and this despite the fact that we face many threats to our food supply: avian flu, BSE, and bioterrorism. Today, we debate the National Uniformity for Food Act. This bill would make our food safety laws uniform: uniformly weak, uniformly toothless. Right now, it is States, not the Federal Government, that conduct the body of our food safety work. State and local agencies do 80 percent of the food inspections in the United States. They are on the front lines. They test food products and they manage food emergencies. Yet under this bill, State laws requiring warnings and labels on foods would be superceded or eliminated. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 200 State laws would be immediately affected by this bill's passage, requiring States to submit requests for waivers to the FDA. The cost to the FDA for reviewing these waivers would be $100 million. Does this bill authorize another $100 million to FDA? Of course not. This, at a time when the administration's budget proposals cut Federal food safety funding by over $450 million. One of my colleagues talked about this being theater. This is not theater. Many of us have been asking for more funding for food inspections and food safety over the last several years, and the administration and the leadership in this House have refused to do it. This bill has other problems. States regulate shellfish, milk production, and other food products. In the absence of any Federal standards, those State protections will disappear. The bill undermines our ability to respond to bioterrorism and other food emergencies. It would require the notification of the Secretary of HHS before responding to a food emergency. They could only respond once they have received assurance that the Federal Government is not taking enforcement actions of their own. The State would then be required to apply for waiver, after the fact, to justify their actions. This is absurd. If this Republican Congress wanted to make our food safety laws uniform, it would create a single food agency that would regulate the safety of our food, as some of us have suggested over and over again. We have 12 different agencies and 35 statutes currently in place to regulate food safety at the Federal level. If you want to be serious about this issue of food safety, let us have one single agency whose responsibility it is to make sure our food supply is safe and ensure the public health of this Nation. We need to do a better job of coordinating our efforts to protect the public health, but we do not get there by weakening our laws; we get there by strengthening them. And that is something that this bill does not even begin to attempt to do.

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, Sandra MacKinnon Cosenza, as she celebrates her retirement. After more than thirty-four years of dedicated service, Sandy will be leaving Area Cooperative Education Services, one of six educational service centers that were formed under Connecticut State Statute in 1970. A result of recognizing that school districts must work together to meet the ever-changing needs of local education systems, these centers provide an environment where quality programs can be planned, developed and implemented-- giving our young people access to the best educational opportunities possible. Education is the cornerstone of success and the most critical link between our young people and their futures. Throughout our country, we look to our towns and cities to provide these invaluable skills to our children. That is what ACES is all about and its success would not have been possible without Sandy. As former Executive Director Peter Young recently described, for the first twenty years of its existence, Sandy was the heart of the ACES Personnel office--advertising vacancies, processing applications, providing orientation for new hires and ensuring that staff not only received their benefits but also met their specific needs. Everyone consulted with Sandy and welcomed her advice and suggestions. In addition, she built and improved staff spirit by organizing social events and took special care to provide the Governing Board with all that they needed. Beyond her administrative skills was her commitment to the students of ACES. Though many of them will never know, Sandy's genuine care and concern for their education both inside and outside the classroom made all the difference in their lives. She began a Jesse tree which allowed staff to contribute clothing and other gifts at Christmas for students who came from families in need. She fostered the notion of Holiday cards for ACES--cards designed by students which were used as an outreach tool to the school districts which they serve. It is from these special contributions to the ACES students that Sandy was able to pass on a very unique lesson--they learned the value and reward of giving back to their community. It is easy to see why Sandy will be missed by staff and students alike. In addition to her career at ACES, Sandy has been married to her wonderful husband, Henry, for forty-two years and has raised two exceptional daughters, Robyn and Jennifer. She has also recently become a grandmother--a role which no doubt she will happily dedicate more of her time to in her retirement. I could not speak about Sandy without also personally thanking her for her many years of special friendship. She is 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. And so, it is with deep admiration and affection that I stand today to join her husband, Henry; her children, Robyn and Jennifer; her son- in-law, Kevin, her grandson, Ian; family, friends and colleagues in extending my sincere congratulations to Sandra Cosenza as she celebrates her retirement. Sandy is a remarkable woman whose generosity and compassion has left an indelible mark on the lives of all of those who know her and many that do not. Though she will be enjoying her retirement years, I am certain that Sandy will continue to touch the lives of others--her extraordinary warmth 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, in so many communities across this nation, civic organizations have been founded in an effort to advance the local African-American community. For the last twenty years, the City of West Haven, Connecticut has been home to the West Haven Black Coalition--an organization that has not only helped to promote African-American involvement in the community, but has also worked diligently to improve the community and quality of life for all West Haven residents. We begin each year celebrating the life and lessons of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King followed by the celebration of Black History Month. It could not be more fitting that the West Haven Black Coalition's anniversary coincides with these festivities. In the last two decades, under the leadership of founder and president Carroll Brown, the West Haven Black Coalition has gone a long way in bringing life to the legacy of Dr. King and addressing social, political, and economic issues through active participation in the government and community. Dr. King once said, ``Life's most persistent and urgent question is what are you going to do for others.'' Dr. King devoted his life--indeed gave his life--to working for others. Despite our best intentions, it is not always easy to find the time for community service. With so much going on in our daily lives it can be a challenge which is why I have a deep admiration for those among us who take the time to give something back and to share our talents with others. For 20 years, the West Haven Black Coalition has done just that. It was not so long ago that minorities faced seemingly overwhelming obstacles to justice and equality. While our nation has taken great strides, there is still work to be done--this has become the mission of the West Haven Black Coalition. Actively encouraging African-Americans to not only run for public office but serve in city government, developing and implementing community enrichment projects throughout the city, and making opportunity real for our students by providing college scholarships--these are just some of the ways that the West Haven Black Coalition has made a difference. Perhaps more important than the physical impact the West Haven Black Coalition has had on our community is the inspiring message that their good work has passed on to a new generation. Your participation, your service--in school, in government, or in the community--gives you a strong voice and empowers you to make a difference. In its first 20 years, the West Haven Black Coalition has left an indelible mark on our community and I have no doubt that they will continue to have a positive impact on the city for many years to come. That is why I am pleased to stand today to join the many who have gathered to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Carroll Brown and the West Haven Black Coalition for their invaluable contributions. My sincere and heart-felt congratulations as they celebrate this very special milestone.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the idea that any foreign government could control our ports sets off alarm bells for many Americans. And it ought to. Our Nation's ports are among our most critical infrastructure. And that is why I cannot fathom why the Bush administration would willingly transfer the operation of 20 U.S. ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, a country who may be an ally today but has had a checkered past when it comes to supporting terrorism. In approving the transaction, we see once again how the administration conducts business behind a veil of secrecy, cutting corners, failing to follow the law and acting at the behest of not the American citizens but industry. Indeed, they only agreed to the 45-day review the law requires after the company suggested it. And while mid-level officials were signing off on this deal, the President was nominating a top DP World executive to serve in his administration, a blatant conflict of interest. Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that Dubai Ports World says there will be a firewall between the company and its U.S. ports, make no mistake, their employees will be operating these ports as of Thursday. And whether the issue is ports, the Iraq War, the wiretapping of American citizens, what concerns me is this Republican Congress has never once asked this administration the tough questions. It has to. Congress must not once again give in to a policy that is clearly not in the public interest.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it seems the House has voted on this legislation countless times, and people may be wondering what has changed about this conference report since the House passed this bill at 6:00 in the morning late last year. This is it. Here is what has changed. This is a Washington Post article: Closed door deal makes $22 billion difference. The Washington Post reported last week the Republican leadership met with lobbyists behind closed doors to restore a $22 billion slush fund for HMOs, a slush fund that the Senate had the decency to drop from this legislation. As one health care lobbyist said, ``$22 billion is a lot of money.'' But instead of foregoing this latest example of corporate welfare, Republicans have instead put these cuts on the backs of those who cannot afford lobbyists. These include poor children and working families who will face new costs and higher premiums, reducing care for 1.6 million Americans and kicking over 65,000 Americans, mostly whom have kids, off of Medicaid. Others who will be off of Medicaid are working but do not receive health care through their employer. This, less than 24 hours after the President's call to expand health care in his State of the Union address. $22 billion is a lot of money, enough to restore the $12.7 billion in student loan assistance cut from this legislation, the $1.5 billion of cuts to child and foster care support, and the $7 billion of cuts in health care for families. Some may look at this brazen example of cronyism at its worst, at all the indictments and plea bargains we have seen, and say, well, that is just the way Washington works. That is how Washington operates today under Republican leadership and a Republican administration. But that is not the way that it ought to work. Regardless of which party is in power, the people's business ought never to be made and done behind closed doors, much less critical budget decisions that can mean life and death for some families. The American people deserve better from this body. It is time we gave them a reason to expect better. Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues to honor the dean of the House--a man who over the course of a half century has changed the face of this institution. Over the course of 25 Congresses, serving under 10 Presidents, John Dingell has embodied the best of public service--of honoring those who elect us to office and fulfilling our obligations to people. His is an ideal each of us, in our own way, hopes to achieve in our time as Members of this institution. Like his father before him, John Dingell has made a mark on every Member with whom he has served. He is shrewd, he is tough, and he is as skilled as any public official I have ever known. Indeed, when I was elected to the Congress, one of my first orders of business was to meet with John Dingell--not to say anything, but to listen. And I will never forget what he told me that day: ``Assist your colleagues when you can--but if they ask for something you can't deliver, just be honest and tell them. Always maintain credibility with your colleagues.'' For 15 years, that advice has stayed with me, helping me serve my constituents and the American people more effectively. In whatever capacity he has served his country--from his 4 years as a page in this institution as a boy, to his time in the Army when he rose to the ranks of second lieutenant to his half-century in Congress--John Dingell has served with dignity, with distinction and with historic consequences.