Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join the many family, friends, and community members who have gathered to pay tribute to an outstanding member of the Branford community and a dear friend of mine, Georgette ``Tootsie'' Laske. After twenty-seven years of dedicated service to the Town of Branford, Tootsie has retired from municipal service. Though she will no longer be at Town Hall, I have no doubt that Tootsie will continue to be a fixture in the Branford community. A life-long resident of Branford, Tootsie graduated from Branford High School where she was an active and skilled athlete. Playing basketball, field hockey, volleyball, and gymnastics, Tootsie was recognized in 1999 for her accomplishments with induction into the Branford Sports Hall of Fame. After high school, Tootsie began working for Security Insurance Company and Nationwide Insurance. However, in 1978, Tootsie was hired by then Town Clerk Peter Abondi as Branford's Assistant Town Clerk--a position which she held until her election as Town Clerk in 1992. In her many years of service at Town Hall, Tootsie has made residents and non-residents alike feel welcome with her complimentary Tootsie Roll candies. Her kind heart and special way with people made her a popular figure at Town Hall and there is no doubt that her presence will be missed. Tootsie's dedication to her community extended far beyond her work at Town Hall. Our communities would not be the same without those individuals who so willingly volunteer their time and energy on behalf of others. Throughout her lifetime, Tootsie has been this kind of community member--always willing to help in any way that she could. Whether it was as a volunteer for the Special Olympics World Games Connecticut in 1995, as a long-time member of the Italian-American Women's Auxiliary of Branford, or her work with a multitude of local civic organizations, Tootsie's unwavering efforts have touched the lives of many. I have no doubt that, though she will be enjoying her retirement, Tootsie will continue to find ways in which she can enrich the community as well as the lives of others. I am also glad to have this opportunity to extend my personal thanks and sincere appreciation to Tootsie for her many years of support and friendship. Tootsie is an extraordinary woman and I consider myself privileged to call her my friend. For her countless hours of service, both professionally and personally, to the Town of Branford, I am proud to rise today to join her husband, James; her four children, Kathleen, Nancy, Thomas, and James; her eight grandchildren, Jenna, Bridget, Kelly, Scott, Mikayla, Patrick, Allison, and Kirsten; family, friends, colleagues, and community members in extending my sincere congratulations to Georgette ``Tootsie'' Laske as she celebrates her retirement. Her generosity, compassion, and good heart have left an indelible mark on the Branford community and a legacy that will inspire generations to come. My very best wishes for many more years of health and happiness.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, pension plans are today underfunded in this country by $450 billion--up over 1,000 percent since 2000--and the agency that insures these pension plans, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, is $23 billion in debt, facing billions more in possible claims from companies such as Delta Airlines, Delphi, and Northwest Airlines. Why? Well, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle give the same excuse every time: September 11. We are at war. Times are tough. But during that same time, corporate profits have risen an astonishing 50 percent and CEO compensation has grown even faster. Indeed, USA Today reports that 300 executives responsible for more than three-quarters of a trillion dollars in corporate losses since 2000 were rewarded with salary, bonuses and stock options totaling a staggering $12 billion--$8 million per year. Times are not so tough for them--and little wonder. As a confidential letter sent to the SEC shows, CEO compensation at many publicly traded companies bears no relation to company performance. But as we all know, pensions do. And when we talk about pensions and why reform is so badly needed, we should remember who it is that depend on them most--we are talking about people who have worked all their lives and are looking to enjoy their later years with some measure of financial security. Most of the 34 million Americans who are covered by a traditional pension that provides a guaranteed monthly benefit in retirement are not young adults starting out, with their whole careers in front of them--people who can change course at a moment's notice. These are very often seniors, people who have raised families; again, people who have worked their entire lives and paid not only their taxes but their dues to society with the expectation that what they have invested will be returned to them. The least we can do as their elected representatives is tell them that we will ensure that the Government does its part to guarantee that their employers will honor their end of this bargain. That should be the bedrock principle on which this legislation is predicated, but it is not. H.R. 2830 fails to protect older and longer- service workers that are involved in cash balance pension plan conversions. It does not prevent employers from giving the same conflicted financial advice to their workers that gave us Enron and WorldCom. And perhaps most disturbingly, it fails to stop companies from dumping billions of dollars of unfunded pension obligations onto the PBGC by declaring bankruptcy at the expense of taxpayers and employees. And let's be clear, that is very much by design. The goal of this Republican majority from the beginning with pension reform these last few years has been the same--relieving companies from their obligations to employees, providing an out to the point where we would have no choice but to switch from a strong pension system to one that leaves retirees in a much more tentative, less secure financial state. And with Republicans in charge these last 4 years, we have almost reached that point--but not quite yet. But this is not the direction we want to take as a country. And so, I urge my colleagues to make a statement with this vote that says companies do have obligations their workers--that says reforming our pension system is possible but only if we ask employees and employers alike to share in the benefits and the sacrifice. We can do better than this bill and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, $24 billion will not go to the children of this country, but 53 percent of the tax cuts that this party put together in the last several weeks will go to people who make over $1 million a year. So $24 billion denied to kids in this country to satisfy the wealthiest 1 percent of the wage earners in this Nation. It lays out very clearly the values and the priorities of the majority party here. Let me just say to you tonight that this Nation has been through a lot in the last several months: the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and a precarious situation in Iraq. This is not the moment for the drastic cuts the Republican budget calls for. This ought to be a moment of clarity where we realize what priorities are and what is important to us as a Nation. This budget reconciliation, the cuts here, cut access to health care for low-income children and families; college loan assistance, leaving the typical student borrower to pay $5,800 more for college; throws a quarter of a million low-income families off food stamps, working families trying their best to provide this winter. Those families who make over a million dollars who are going to get the tax cut, they do not need food stamps. They probably have medical bills because they have gout because they are overeating. They are not on food stamps. The American people have had enough. With this motion, Democrats are calling to reject the most extreme cuts proposed by the majority that impact our most vulnerable citizens, whether it is stripping protections which guarantee more than 5 million children receive the medical services they need, mental health services they need, optical care, hearing aids, cuts to child support we have been talking about, 40 percent. It eliminates federally funded foster care benefits for grandparents and relatives of abused and neglected children. This bill goes out of its way to make the lives of Americans already living on the margin even more difficult. It is the wrong direction. Vote for the Spratt motion to instruct.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, to my colleague on the other side of the aisle, I just might add that this is the people's bill. But, unfortunately, this particular bill is not meeting the needs of the American public as has been aptly pointed out by my colleague from Wisconsin. I also might say that there has been bipartisan support in the past because together we could come together and increase the opportunity, whether it was IDEA, whether it was for low-income assistance, whether it was for education, and it was a rallying point on a bipartisan basis to do something for the American people. Mr. Speaker, when we defeated this bill in November, it cut health research, college loans and low-income energy assistance. It cut assistance to working families and the unemployed by almost 4 percent. And at a time when America is falling behind competitors like China, whose economy is growing three times as fast as ours, it cut worker training. That bill failed by a bipartisan vote of 209 to 224. What about the bill is so different this time that it warrants passage? Very little. Indeed, this bill is at the same funding level, simply shifting money from one underfunded priority to another. If anything, once you consider the additional $1.4 billion in cuts that the Republican leadership intends to impose with a 1 percent government-wide across-the-board cut, this bill is worse. I understand that the chairman and his staff are doing their best. I do recognize that this bill includes many programs that the President had slated for elimination, especially in the area of education and community services block grants. But his is an impossible mission. He has been asked to craft a spending bill with resources that do not even allow for us to meet last year's levels with inflation. And why? And why? Not because America cannot fund these priorities. We are the richest country in the world. Rather, it is because the Republican leadership has chosen to use the funds we have for tax cuts that only impact Americans earning over $200,000 per year. I might add that 53 percent of those tax cuts will go to people who make over $1 million a year. That is the real story behind this so-called budget crunch. That is what is preventing us from providing so many needed resources to help the good people of this country, the good people in our communities to look to government in times of need, and they are looking to government today, and we are saying to them, what government says is: Later for you. Forget it. We are not there when you need it. As I said in November, ask any middle class family today what is important to them, tax cuts for wealthy Americans or things like lowering the cost of health care, of heating their homes this winter or sending their kids to college? They will tell you every time that all they want is something that makes a difference in their lives and in their family's lives. This bill fails the test. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3963, to reauthorize the Long Island Sound Restoration Act through 2010. The Long Island Sound is a 16,000 square foot estuary that is home to 10 percent of the Nation's population. The Sound provides $6 billion to the Connecticut and New York economies through recreational activities, commercial boating and fishing, and trade. The New Haven, Bridgeport, and New London ports bring national and international trade to our region, and this valuable economic and environmental resource must be protected. Reauthorizing LISRA will enable us to do that. One of the greatest threats to the Long Island Sound is excessive nitrogen loading that causes hypoxia or low dissolved oxygen in the water that reduces the amount of healthy habitat necessary to support fish and shellfish. This is a problem that can be combated by upgrading sewage treatment plants to remove nitrogen from waste water, and Connecticut, New York, and the Environmental Protection Agency have committed to reducing nitrogen levels in the Sound by over 50 percent by 2014. This strong commitment, however, costs money, and cannot be accomplished without the reauthorization of LISRA. Through 2004, Connecticut received $7.8 million in federal funding to assist in nitrogen cleanup, and it expects to receive an additional $1.9 million for 2005. Connecticut has invested over $150 million of its own money to upgrade sewage treatment plants, and will continue to do so with the help of LISRA. Six communities in my district--Ansonia, Derby, Naugatuck, New Haven, Waterbury, and West Haven--have benefited from LISRA funding, but they cannot complete these much needed upgrades without federal help. Mr. Speaker, the Long Island Sound is a unique body of water--one of our most precious natural resources--and it must be protected. I urge the passage of this bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, as the Republican leadership spends more time in the courthouse than the People's House doing the people's business, defending itself from charges of bribery, tax evasion and money laundering, the President is traveling the country telling the American people how incredible this economy is. Yet, survey after survey shows the American people do not agree with him. This despite the fact that the economy grew 4.2 percent last year. It is the best statistical performance since 1999. Why? Well, in part because very little of this growth is impacting them. 5.4 million more Americans live in poverty than they did before President Bush came into office. Six million more Americans are without health insurance, and the average income fell for the fifth year in a row last year. The administration's stock explanation for this is always the same, ``September 11. We are at war.'' Well, being at war has not stopped corporate profits from soaring more than 50 percent since 2001. And when you have Members of Congress pleading guilty to having accepted bribes from defense contractors, ongoing investigations into lawmakers' agreeing to perform official acts in return for lavish golf trips, expensive dinners and campaign contributions, it is easy to understand why corporations are doing so well. Mr. Speaker, it is time to put the needs of families before the special interests of lobbyists.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to make permanent an expiring provision in the current law that ensures protection for judges and for their families when they are threatened and they may be in danger. This is a much-needed revision of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act. But, in addition, this House would do well to pass a 2005 Ethics in Government Act of its own. Indeed, we have seen in recent months how broken the ethics process in this body is. Had the majority shown as much initiative in fixing that process as it has in bringing this bill to the floor, perhaps we would not have seen Members of that majority indicted or pleading guilty to charges of bribery, money laundering, and tax evasion. As it stands, the Washington Post says investigators are now looking into the actions of at least a half dozen Members of Congress, senior congressional staff, one former Deputy Secretary of the Interior, and several lobbyists. In the wake of the tragic murder of a Chicago judge last summer, the underlying legislation we consider takes steps to protect that judiciary. But in the wake of countless scandals that continue to bring shame to this institution and the majority, Democrats believe that the time has come to protect the integrity of the judicial process as well. Mr. Speaker, just as we must protect the hardworking judicial officials in our country, so must we protect the American people, whom this breakdown in the ethics process impacts the most. As the leadership of this House spends more time in courthouses than in the people's House doing the people's business, they are the ones that we are putting at risk when we fail to protect our homeland, as the September 11 Commission chairman found just this week. I support this legislation. But the time has come to put the needs of people before the special interests of the lobbyists.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is astonishing how badly this administration and the Republican Congress has veered off course. Bribery. Perjury. Allegations of insider trading and money laundering. The majority leaders in both Chambers of the Congress, one under indictment, the other being investigated by the SEC. The American people understand full well the consequences of this culture of corruption. They saw it in New Orleans. The administration's incompetence was more devastating than the storm itself. They see a President all too willing to cover up waste and profiteering here and abroad where, again, incompetence has contributed to the loss of American lives, more than 2,000 and climbing. More than 15,000 wounded, many of whom would go back and fight again for their country if only they could. We have defense contractors bribing Members of this institution. No wonder we are so ill-prepared for another terrorist attack. This week, the chairman of the September 11 Commission gave this government's response, since that terrible day, five Fs and 12 Ds. The facts more than speak for themselves. Democrats believe that the time has come to restore the values of responsibility and integrity to our way that our government does business. Mr. Speaker, it starts with putting the needs of families before special interests of the lobbyists. It starts here in this building, and it starts with new leadership.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this politically-motivated resolution. I believe this resolution does a disservice to the courage my colleague from Pennsylvania has shown in seeking to open a dialogue on one of the most important issues facing our country today--how we can be successful in Iraq while putting in place a process that begins to bring our troops home. And let there be no mistaking my colleague's motivations. Congressman Murtha is a highly decorated Marine veteran and a Vietnam War hero. His love for and loyalty to the brave men and women who wear our Nation's uniform is sincere. It is profound. I agree with his characterization of the war in Iraq--specifically how errors by this administration and negligent Congressional oversight have compromised our mission there and put our troops in harm's way. And I agree that next year must be a time of transition in Iraq, allowing Iraqis to take control of their country. America cannot support another year of ``staying the course'' with no end in sight, as the president continues to propose. The time has come for the Bush administration to implement a new strategy for Iraq--one that both safely brings our troops home and brings stability and security to the country and throughout the region. To get there, we must consider the various proposals for success in the Congress. Mr. Speaker, that is a discussion we in this body have waited far too long to have. Now is not a time for the partisanship this majority has shown in bringing this political resolution to the floor. The American people expect better from their representatives in Congress-- particularly on a matter such importance. They deserve better.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, earlier I spoke about how this legislation is out of step with mainstream American values. I would like to submit for the Record the text of a letter sent to every Member of the House from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops reflecting the misguided values that this bill embodies. Department of Social Development and World Peace, Washington, DC, November 8, 2005. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: When Congress began the process of developing the 2006 budget for the United States government last February, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops president Bishop William Skylstad urged Members of Congress to remember that budget ``decisions will reflect not only economic policies but moral choices as well,'' and urged Congress ``to give priority attention in the budget to the needs of poor and vulnerable people both here and abroad.'' As the House now takes up its budget reconciliation bill, we write to reiterate the Conference's priorities and to share our views on how that bill may impact several key programs and the people they serve. We are guided by Catholic moral principles: respect for human life and dignity; the importance of family and the value of work; an option for the poor and the call to participation; and the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity. We also draw upon the Church's experience living with, and serving the poor among us. As perhaps the largest non-governmental provider of health care and human services to vulnerable people, the Catholic community meets the poor in our soup kitchens, Catholic Charities agencies and health care facilities. We are deeply disappointed by the budget reconciliation proposal before the House of Representatives, in particular, its lack of concern for children. Below are specific examples of programs that serve vulnerable people--often children-- that will lose funds if this legislation passes in its current form. Food Stamp Program: The House reconciliation bill includes harmful cuts to the Food Stamp program that will result in taking food away from people, including children, who are being helped now. This would be objectionable anytime, but it is particularly unfair at this time. Recently, USDA reported an increase to 38 million in the number of Americans suffering from hunger or living in homes that are on the edge of hunger. This includes nearly 14 million children. Nearly 300,000 people in low-income working families will lose Food Stamp assistance if this bill becomes law and some 40,000 children in those families will no longer be eligible for free school meals. Many of those denied Food Stamps will be legal immigrants. We were strong supporters of President Bush's successful effort to expand access to Food Stamps for legal immigrants in the last farm bill. We strongly oppose the effort to roll back this expansion, by making legal immigrants wait an additional 2 years for eligibility. Health Care for the Poor: We recognize and affirm the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death and consider access to adequate health care to be a basic human right. No person should be denied access to needed health care because of inability to pay. We oppose the provisions in the bill that would allow states to increase the burden of co-payments, deductibles and premiums on Medicaid beneficiaries--including some children and pregnant women. Health care providers would be allowed to deny services to those who cannot pay these amounts. Another proposal would allow states wide latitude to choose which medical services it will offer to different groups of low- income people. It is important to maintain a federal standard of core benefits, necessary for the maintenance of good health, to which all Medicaid beneficiaries are entitled. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that these provisions will save $6.2 billion over five years (and $28.2 billion over ten years), precisely because they will cause people eligible for Medicaid to get less of the health care they need. This attempt to save money by making it harder for low- income and vulnerable people to get the health care they need is simply unacceptable. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: The House reconciliation bill includes the House bill to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) welfare program. We reiterate our concern that the House approach to TANF reauthorization increases the work requirements on all TANF recipients, generally single mothers, and repeals the rule allowing a lower work requirement for mothers of children under 6 years old. While the House reconciliation bill does include small increases in child care funding, the amount is insufficient to pay for current child care services given inflation, let alone cover the need for additional child care created by increasing the TANF work requirements. We are also disappointed that the bill does not restore TANF benefit eligibility to recently-arrived legal immigrants. However, we note our support for funding programs--separate from the basic block grant--to promote marriage and healthy families (although we believe it would be better to target this spending on marriage and family services for low-income families). Child Support Funds: The House reconciliation bill cuts Federal funding for state child support services which will make it harder for states to collect child support for low and moderate-income families. According to CBO extimates, over the course of ten years families could receive $21 billion less in child support payments. Child support payments can be crucial to the economic viability of some families, keeping them out of poverty and off public programs. They also encourage parental responsibility and can help to maintain the connection between children and their non-custodial parent. Undermining the collection of child support is not good for children or families. Agricultural Programs: We are disappointed that the reconciliation bill reduces spending on key conservation programs. The bishops have stated that protecting God's creation must be a central goal of agricultural policies, and our conference supports policies that promote soil conservation, Improve water quality, protect wildlife, and maintain biodiversity. The bishops' conference also endorses targeting limited government resources for direct federal payments and other forms of domestic agricultural support to small and moderate- sized farms, to help them through difficult times caused by periodic price shocks or unpredictable natural disasters, such as the recent hurricanes. Limiting U.S. farm supports and targeting them to those who need them the most would also increase the possibility that poor farmers around the world would be able to sell their products and support their families. We would welcome efforts to begin the process of redirecting agricultural subsidies to those most in need. We urge you to remember that the federal budget is more than a fiscal plan; it reflects our values as a people. Budget choices have clear moral and human dimensions. A just society is one that protects and promotes the fundamental rights of its members--with special attention to meeting the basic needs, including the need for safe and affordable health care, of the poor and underserved. In these difficult times, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops urges you to work for a budget that does not neglect the needs of the ``least of these'' in our nation and the world. Sincerely in Christ, Most Rev. Nicholas DiMarzio, Bishop of Brooklyn, Chairman, Domestic Policy Committee. Most Rev. John Ricard, SSJ, Bishop of Pensacola-Tallahassee, Chairman, International Policy Committee.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the work of this subcommittee has always reflected our priorities as a Nation, helping provide services that help us meet our most basic needs, health, our children's education, our scientific research, challenges only the Federal Government has the ability, the capacity and the resources to help us meet. The problem with the funding in this conference report is that it fails to meet that threshold. Worker training, funded at levels below last year. The National Institutes of Health, where this subcommittee made historic progress, doubling our investment in medical research. Name the disease, childhood leukemia, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, HIV, the work of the NIH has prolonged or improved the life of every single American. The funding level for the National Institutes of Health does not even meet inflation. Health professions are cut in half. Head Start is funding below last year's level. And with the cost of a college education skyrocketing, this conference report flat funds Pell Grants, meaning the maximum award is exactly the same as it was last year. Funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, at last year's level, will prove disastrous for low income families. This bill fails to invest in any of the priorities important to the American people. And the American people are tired of the Congress spending trillions in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at the same time they are told we simply do not have the resources to invest in things that impact their daily lives. We can make those investments, but only, only if we make them a priority. That is what the American people want and expect from their government. You ask any middle class family what is more important to them, tax cuts for wealthy Americans, or lowering the cost of health care, home heating costs or college. They will tell you they want something that makes a difference in their lives and their family's lives. Vote against this conference report.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it has been a difficult year for our country: a brutal hurricane season, this government's inadequate response, leaving thousands homeless without power or a roof over their heads, energy costs skyrocketing, poverty on the rise, the recently passed mark of 2,000 troops killed in Iraq, an ongoing insurgency, little good news coming out of the country. Americans want leaders who put the public interest first, who put the American people first when we face difficult national choices. I look at this legislation with its cuts to student loans, food stamps, health care, child support enforcement, and I wonder, could this Congress possibly be more out of step with what the American people expect from their leaders right now. Most Americans saw Katrina and the extraordinary poverty and problems exposed and asked where did we go wrong. What can we do to get this right? I look at this legislation, to $70 billion in tax cuts planned for the wealthiest Americans, and I wonder, why is this Congress not asking the same questions. I have deep reservations about this legislation, about the values that would motivate such a terrible response to our times. It runs counter to our better nature. It does not reflect the moral responsibility of our government and our obligation to the people of this great Nation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas for his leadership on this important issue. Nineteen years ago, I learned for myself the deadly toll ovarian cancer can take. Back then, I knew little about these diseases. But then I was diagnosed with ovarian cancer during an unrelated doctor's visit. I was fortunate to have excellent doctors who detected the cancer by accident in Stage 1 and underwent radiation treatment for the next two-and-a-half months. I am proud to say that I have now been cancer-free for 19 years. I was lucky--lucky that my life was given back to me. But of course, my life was changed at the same time. We all hope to see the day when cancer is prevented and no one has to go through what I and so many others have endured. When it comes to life and death, no one should have to depend on luck. And frankly, we are asking 25,000 women a year to do just that. As we commemorate the first National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, we do so with the understanding that more than 25,000 women are diagnosed every year with ovarian cancer--1 out of every 57 women. 16,000 of those women will die simply because the disease is not detected until it has reached an advanced stage. The tragedy of it all is that ovarian cancer can be cured if it is detected soon enough. When detected in the early stages, more than 94 percent of women survive longer than 5 years, and most are cured completely. The problem is simply that women have never had a reliable, accurate method of screening for ovarian cancer in the early stages. But that may be changing. Today, researchers are on the cusp of a breakthrough, of giving real hope to women who might otherwise not be diagnosed until it is too late. And our investment in ovarian cancer research is paying dividends, which is why we must keep fighting to make sure that ovarian cancer grants at the National Institutes of Health are fully funded. With 25,000 lives on the line every year, we can ill afford any setbacks in our work to find potential screening tools and treatments for this deadly disease. Mr. Speaker, providing hope to women across the country is what that investment is about--highlighting the need to make that hope a reality is what this resolution is about. It is my privilege to support it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and for his hard work and energy, his effort and commitment to the people of this Nation. I consider it a privilege to serve on the House Budget Committee, helping to lay out a fiscal blueprint for the Nation to work toward crafting a document that reflects the values and the priorities of the American people. Budgets are just not numbers on a page, Mr. Speaker. They live and they breathe. They are about human beings and what is happening in their lives. As this House prepares to consider $54.2 billion in a budget package, I find it hard to believe that the American people's priorities would include denying food stamps to 300,000 Americans and 40,000 children. I find it hard to believe their values tell them that we should respond to the skyrocketing health care costs by charging children from poor families for doctors' visits; that their answer to unaffordable child care costs would be denying child care assistance to another 270,000 children of working parents, cutting food stamps, charging poor families for visits to the pediatrician, denying child care to a quarter million working parents. Those are not the values or the priorities of the American people; but it is becoming increasingly clear that they are the priorities of the Republican Party, the Republican House leadership, the Republican administration, and the party that controls all three branches of government right now. Let us take a look. What other priorities do the Republicans bring to bear with this reconciliation package? One, let us make it harder for people to attend college. If you attended college in the last 50 years, you received financial aid from the Federal Government. Following World War II, you had the benefit of the GI Bill. Eight million veterans were given education vouchers at the same time it doubled the number of homeowners. Thirty-five years ago, Congress passed the Higher Education Act and said that the Federal Government was going to open the doors of colleges, regardless of family wealth; that, in fact, education was the great equalizer in this country, that because of your God-given talent you could succeed. Federal student aid has helped millions of people go to college who otherwise might never have had that opportunity. This bill turns its back on that commitment. It leaves the typical student borrower, and I say to young people and their families today, understand this, you are already saddled with $17,500 in debt and you are going to pay an additional $5,800 in interest and taxes over the life of your loan if this bill is passed. At a time when our Nation faces unprecedented competition from the likes of China and India, this majority puts up financial barriers that prevent 4.4 million high school graduates from attending a 4-year public college over the next decade; 123,000 students in my State of Connecticut alone will not be able to attend college. This when the United States is projected to face a shortage of up to 12 million college-educated workers by the year 2020. Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation impacts children and families. It also strips protections which would guarantee more than 5 million children who receive the medical services they need no longer receive them: medical health services, optical care, hearing aids, cuts to child support enforcement by 40 percent, eliminating the federally funded foster care benefits for grandparents and relatives of abused and neglected children. This bill goes out of its way to make the lives of Americans already living on the margins even more difficult. A final point. Food stamps, a program which goes straight to the heart of the government's responsibility, a moral responsibility to people, 25 million people in this Nation rely on food stamps. It is a program of efficiency and competence. The cuts result in 300,000 food stamp recipients losing eligibility. That includes 40,000 children. When you cut food stamps, which is the direct measure for eligibility for the school lunch program, that means 40,000 kids will no longer be eligible for a school breakfast program or a school lunch program. Why? Why are we doing this? Let us lay it on the table. It is about tax cuts, tax cuts for those who need them least. Fifty-three percent of the tax cuts go to the upper 1 or 2 percent of the public making over $1 million a year. $70 billion of tax cuts, capital gains, and dividend tax cuts go to Americans who are living lives of comfort and lives of leisure. And paying for these tax cuts will be 40,000 kids going hungry. The majority is effectively saying, so much for morality, so much for values, so much for the common good. These are Republican priorities. They are not mine. They are not my constituents. I think we will all learn over the course of the next year they are not the American people's. This Nation must understand what is potentially going to befall them if this bill is passed. I urge you to stand tall and say ``no'' to these cuts which will do nothing but ravage the good people of this Nation.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Special Agent Michael Wolf who has served the Federal Bureau of Investigation for over 30 years. Just last month we learned that Special Agent Wolf would be leaving the New Haven Field Office to a new position at the Washington Headquarters. It was with great excitement that we heard Special Agent Wolf had been selected by FBI Director Robert Mueller, III to serve as Special Agent in Charge of the Critical Incident Response Group. Throughout his career, Special Agent Wolf has demonstrated a unique commitment to public service and has dedicated a lifetime to ensuring the safety and security of our communities and our Nation. He has exhibited a deep commitment to public safety not only in joining the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but in successfully combating crime in a myriad of forms. Joining the Bureau in 1973 as a physical science technician, Agent Wolf was soon appointed to the position of Special Agent. His first assignment took him to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania where he worked on applicant, white collar crime, organized crime, and narcotics matters. Just 5 years later, Agent Wolf was selected as a member of the Bureau's Hostage Rescue Team where he served for 3 years until his promotion to FBIHQ Supervisor, responsible for domestic terrorism matters. Transferred to the New Haven Field Office as a Field Supervisor, Agent Wolf headed the Crime/Drug Squad in Connecticut and supervised the successful development of a case against organized crime. He then went on to be promoted to the position of Inspector which brought him back to FBI headquarters. For the last 6 years, Agent Wolf has served as Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Connecticut. I am so pleased to have this opportunity to express my deepest thanks and appreciation to Special Agent Wolf for his gracious assistance to both myself and my staff during his tenure in New Haven. His door has always been open to us, always available to answer our questions or assist in any way that he could. It gives me piece of mind to know that Special Agent Wolf will be next serving as the Special Agent in Charge of the Critical Incident Response Group. Through the myriad of positions he has held and variety of responsibilities he has been charged with, Agent Wolf has developed a distinguished reputation and an impressive resume. With his knowledge, expertise, and strong work ethic, I have no doubt that this new division of the Bureau will be successful in their mission. For his invaluable service and continued commitment to public service, I am proud to stand today to pay tribute to Special Agent Michael Wolf. I extend my very best wishes to Agent Wolf; his wife, Francine; and his daughters, Danielle and Lindsay as he accepts this new post in Washington, DC. I have no doubt that he will excel in this position and work diligently to ensure the safety and security of our communities and our Nation. Good Luck and God Bless.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, if I can briefly address the just prior conversation, I will commend my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) in terms of trying to make some clarification on the issue of food assistance. I also will commend my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) in this regard: I know where his heart is on food assistance; it is where we all need to be. I will tell you that we can discuss the nature of the problem in terms of the distribution, but I think what was particularly important in this committee was when we first had the money presented for food assistance, it was less, less, in the President's budget than we had in the prior year, and it was split between our committee and sending money to AID, thereby lowering the dollar amount by about $265 million. We were adamant about trying to maintain a higher level of assistance, and, I tell you, without having the benefit of getting back that $265 million from AID, we were able to bring the dollar amount on food assistance up to $1.1 billion, which we are proud of, and that is part of the admonition in the conference report.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you again to my colleague for yielding to me. I want to say thank you to Chairman Bonilla for working to deliver this bill to the floor and for working across the aisle. I have enjoyed working with him, even when we differ on issues and priorities. I know that he takes the responsibilities as Chair very, very seriously, and I have a deep respect for him for that. In addition, I want to say thank you to his staff and the gentleman from Wisconsin's staff and my staff, all of whom have worked so diligently this year and for long hours. These are good public servants, all of them. I am particularly pleased that after several years we had the opportunity to participate in a conference meeting to resolve several outstanding issues in a public capacity. Indeed, we had an open conversation and a discussion about matters including conflict of interest waivers on FDA advisory boards, the integrity of the food stamp program and our national animal identification system, to name but a few. I only wish that the same spirit of openness and transparency with which we discussed those issues had guided the conference efforts to resolve them, because I believe what we are doing is important here. The programs funded through this bill directly impact the everyday lives of Americans, from public health to the FDA, to rural development, infrastructure maintenance, environmental conservation and preservation, nutrition assistance at home and abroad. Failure to adequately invest in these programs will have a serious long-term consequence for our Nation. Unfortunately, in some of these areas, the bill falls short. I believe the President's budget failed to meet the needs of rural America, decimating rural development programs. This bill makes some headway in reversing cuts made by the President, providing $80 million more than the President's request for rural water and waste grants, for example. However, I am concerned that this number remains below the level in last year's House bill and well below the 2004 level. Rural America faces serious economic development challenges, from affordable housing and clean drinking water, to sewage systems and access to remote educational and medical resources; and I am afraid that this funding shortfall will lead to long-term deficiencies in rural infrastructure. In addition, this bill covers the funding of the most important agency in the entire government: the Food and Drug Administration. FDA oversees the safety of products that Americans use every day, the vast majority of our processed and fresh foods, our prescription drugs, our medical devices, and our blood supply. And this agency has had many problems over the last year, from abrupt resignations of key staff, to the recalls of Bextra and Vioxx, to hearings that have exposed the fissures that have developed between drug safety scientists and the senior management at FDA. Along those lines, I want to say thank you again to Chairman Bonilla for working with me to include funding to double the annual funding for review of direct-to-consumer ads by FDA, as well as another $5 million for drug safety at the FDA. In 2001, the drug industry spent $2.7 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising; but the FDA office, charged with ensuring that those ads are accurate, was funded at less than $1 million. Doubling that amount is a small start toward remedying the problem. The $5 million will be devoted to the most critical aspects of drug safety. There are other issues, of course, that I look forward to discussing later on today, but I believe there are areas in which we have made real progress and others which I hope that we can revisit in the next budget cycle.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, let me just say once again what a pleasure it has been to work with the chairman and his staff, in particular, Maureen Holohan, Leslie Barrack, Jennifer Miller, and Martin Delgado. I appreciate all of their efforts and good work. As I say to my staff, I was in a staff position before and all of this does not happen by some alchemy. It happens because good people do a lot of good work. I am most appreciative of the assistance from Rob Nabors and Martha Foley and, from my own staff, Ashley Turton and Leticia Mederos. I will support the conference report.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his statement. I am pleased to join with him today as we complete the work on this year's Agriculture appropriations bill, the first in my capacity as ranking member of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee. It has been a pleasure to work with Chairman Bonilla and his staff to put together this bill, as well as with Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Obey in an effort to get here today. I want to say thank you to the subcommittee staffs for their hard work. It truly is yeoman's work. I know that the staffs met for several weeks to iron out the differences between the House and Senate bills. We certainly appreciate all of their hard work. This has been a privilege. When I chose to sit on this subcommittee 9 years ago, I did so because I have always believed that the issues overseen by this subcommittee speak to the core responsibilities of the Federal Government. This is the only subcommittee where farm policy, rural development, conservation, nutrition programs, food safety, drug regulation and public health all come together. As such, it is my belief that the bill that we discuss today is more than a list of programs and funding levels. It is a statement of values, principles and priorities. So when we discuss this bill, I believe we think of it in those terms. We should remember that farm programs, international trade promotion and advocacy that help our farmers across the country sell our products may have profound implications on our Nation's overall economy and quality of life. The research programs at USDA are critical to our efforts to protect our agriculture products, our national herd and our public health. Indeed, there are many aspects of the bill that I am very proud of, particularly in the area of rural development. Whether it is affordable housing, clean drinking water or sewage systems, access to remote educational and medical resources, we know that rural America faces serious economic development challenges. And I believe the President's budget failed to address those challenges, decimating many rural development programs. And despite our hard work, the overall figure remains below the level of last year's House bill, well below the 2004 level, and I am afraid that the funding shortfall in this bill will lead to long-term problems with rural infrastructure. But together we made real headway in reversing those cuts. Indeed, I am proud of the work we were able to accomplish with respect to affordable housing in rural America. We were able to keep the House level on section 502 single family direct loans, which help low- and very low-income households obtain homeownership; and 515 loans for multifamily housing projects to provide living units for people with low and moderate incomes in rural areas. The agreement provides $141 million and $10 million over the respective Senate levels. We also agreed to a new $9 million demonstration program under section 515 to preserve affordable rural multifamily housing. We created a new $16 million rental housing voucher program to protect tenants residing in section 515 multifamily housing from being threatened by their landlords, as well as preserving a nearly $3 million low-income multifamily housing preservation revolving fund in the Senate bill. We made sure to secure language regarding Farm Service Agency office closings. FSA provides that critical link between the farmer and the Federal Government's critical services, delivering assistance to specialty crop producers, disbursal of payments for programs such as the peanut buyout, and the handling of disaster assistance payments. Our language ensures that if FSA closes any field offices, it would require public hearings in the affected areas so that the voices of the community will be heard by USDA before any action is taken, and giving Congress 120 days advance notice. Of course, this bill's impact on the public health is significant as well, from FDA's responsibilities to feeding programs, which urban areas like my hometown of New Haven rely on for women, infants and children, for schools, and for seniors and the disabled living on the edge of poverty. Ensuring that these programs are both funded and operated efficiently is, in my opinion, among the very serious obligations of government, obligations we are charged in the subcommittee with overseeing. I am pleased that we agreed to the funding levels in the House and Senate bills for the Women, Infants and Children Program in the conference agreement. We also protected the program's reserve fund in the unlikely case the current estimates in funding prove too low. I was particularly pleased we were able to secure strong report language directing the Secretary of USDA to tell all agencies to take all necessary steps to keep avian flu out of the U.S., providing a report to us by March of next year on the progress of those efforts. We need to do whatever it takes to aggressively tackle this urgent public health matter, including engaging USDA in that effort. We also added strong report language calling on FDA to develop a response plan on human-to-human transmission of avian influenza. I thank the chairman for working with me to double the annual funding for review of direct-to-consumer ads by FDA, as well as another $5 million for the highest-priority drug safety needs at the FDA. In 2001, the drug industry spent $2.7 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising, but the FDA office charged with ensuring that those ads are accurate was funded at only $884,000. Doubling that amount is a small start toward remedying the inequitable advantage, and the $5 million will be devoted to the most critical aspects of drug safety. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased by many aspects of this bill. I was particularly pleased that after several years we had an opportunity to participate in a conference meeting to resolve several outstanding issues, and to do so in a public capacity. But I was disappointed that same openness and transparency did not carry all the way through to the resolution of all outstanding issues. And there is much to be done, from food stamps and drug reimportation to reform at FDA and meat labeling. As the agency entrusted with ensuring the safety of our food and drug supply and to protect the public health, we all understand how important it is that we maintain FDA's integrity. But the past year has been particularly difficult, from the flu vaccine shortages caused by inept manufacturing oversight to delayed withdrawal of medicines such as Vioxx that have resulted in thousands of unreported deaths to ongoing safety concerns regarding medical devices. Restoring integrity to FDA starts with providing better guidelines in the makeup of its advisory committees. What is particularly troubling is the granting of waivers by FDA to scientists and other experts who have potential conflicts of interest. Permitting these experts to serve and vote regardless of conflict is wrong. This must stop. FDA ought to rely on the opinions of unconflicted, fully qualified professional advisers so that the agency can receive the best unbiased advice possible. The House adopted an amendment 218-210 that would have stopped the granting of such waivers for 1 year for voting members of FDA advisory committees. I believe this was the right approach. Surely we have enough doctors and scientists in this country that we can find unbiased solutions. The Senate adopted language that fails to address the issue by allowing the current practice at FDA to continue. In an effort to break the deadlock on the issue, I offered a compromise amendment at the conference, an amendment that the chairman graciously supported, but the Senate would not accept. I am disappointed with the language that the majority put into the conference agreement. I think it will both deter people from serving on advisory committees, while failing to stop the FDA from granting conflict of interest waivers to scientists, allowing them to continue on these advisory committees. My hope is in the coming year we can resolve the problem. Another serious shortcoming in the bill is in the area of country of origin labeling, giving people the information they need to make an informed choice to protect the safety of their families. Thirty-five other countries we trade with already have a country of origin food labeling system in place, this at a time when food imports are increasing, avian flu poses a serious risk, but the number of inspections of imported meat are decreasing. And given the fact that we continue to have major recalls of meat products, this effort is also about being able to trace back contaminated product in the event of a recall. Knowing the source of an outbreak is critical to the process so we can quickly take action to prevent people from getting sick. Unfortunately, this conference report pushes back any action to implement a labeling system until September 2008. It expands the moratorium to include fruits and vegetables, something that was not in the House bill. I regret to say this is a serious failing, a decision on which we had no input. I hope the Congress will revisit this soon. Perhaps the biggest disappointment in this bill, one so antithetical to the subcommittee's mission that I believe it undermines much of the good work we have done in the past year, is our failure to protect the integrity of the food stamp program, one of the most effective, well- run Federal programs we have. Twenty-five million citizens receive food stamp benefits, children, seniors, low-income families, many displaced by the recent hurricanes. Despite these immense responsibilities, this bill allows a plan to delegate certification and enrollment of recipients for food stamps to a private firm with no accountability or quality assurances. But the Texas Food Stamp Privatization Plan would lay off at least 1,200 State workers, closing more than a quarter of State-run eligibility offices around the State, replacing staff at low hourly rates. Major responsibilities would fall to community organizations, which have admitted they do not have the capacity to handle. Clients would be forced to travel long distances or rely on the Internet for services, with serious implications for seniors, low-income families and those with disabilities. In addition, the plan appears to flout the law, conflicting with Federal statutes governing the food stamp program which require States to obtain a waiver from USDA. What makes this so unfortunate is that it is so unnecessary. The food stamp program right now is operating with the lowest error rate it has ever had. Texas itself has a very well-operated program. This is not simply about an isolated issue in Texas. Taxpayers all over the country pay half the cost of running the food stamp program. We have an obligation to ensure that the program is run effectively, efficiently and in compliance with the law. Quite simply, the conference report fails to fulfill that obligation, one of our most serious responsibilities for this subcommittee. Just let me mention one or two areas of concern that I have. The House and Senate adopted identical language prohibiting the use of Federal funds for the inspection of horses for slaughter for human food. It was a wide margin on roll calls in both Houses. Still there were concerns that the provision would be dropped, and in the final agreement between House and Senate, I was pleased to see the prohibition maintained, even if it was delayed for 120 days. I am confused by the notion as the bill was ready to be filed that there was included a completely new authorizing legislation on horse slaughter, making it parliamentarily impossible to offer this amendment ever again on the House floor. It seems to me that flies in the face of our democratic process. Another provision that was not either in the House or Senate bill or discussed in conference which was inserted without debate before the conference report was filed has to do with a series of changes to the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. Members may be dismayed to know that section 796 of the bill contains language permanently amending the Immigration and Nationality Act. It was adopted by the Senate as part of the bill. I do not know why the sponsor had to have it enacted now without careful consideration and hearing, and why it was included in the agriculture appropriations bill. As I pointed out, I think we made tremendous progress, and we are going to move forward and adopt this piece of legislation. Despite my concerns, it has been a pleasure working with the chairman on this effort on this important bill. I believe we do have much to be proud of. We can feel a sense of accomplishment about the finished product. My hope is we can address the issues where there still appear to be differences and that we can move forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to the remarkable life and legacy of a dear friend, Herman Wolf. In a career that spanned eight decades, his influence on State and national politics garnered him a respected reputation with Democrats and Republicans alike. At the age of 93, Herman passed away this past week, marking the end of an era in Connecticut politics. A gifted public relations guru and a talented political strategist, Herman spent a lifetime working to improve the quality of life for all people. His dedication and commitment to social justice never wavered-- in fact he never stopped, working up until the time of his passing. Herman was an activist, advocate and leader who provided a strong voice to those most in need. In his earliest years in Connecticut, Herman was best known as a top advisor to Governors Abe Ribicoff, John Dempsey, and Ella T. Grasso. He served as an executive aide to then Governor Ribicoff and was an integral part of his successful election to the United States Senate. In addition to his involvement with local campaigns, Herman was also an advisor to State and National Democratic Party Chairman John Bailey. Working with some of our State's most powerful modern political leaders, Herman helped to shape decades of public policy. In addition to his role as a political strategist, Herman also ran a successful public relations firm, Herman Wolf Associates. He represented over 100 clients including prominent labor unions like the AFL-CIO, businesses such as United Technologies and Guiness Stout, and non-profit organizations such as the Ford Foundation, the NAACP, and the American Shakespeare Festival. Herman would later become executive vice-president of the Design Science Institute of Washington, DC, a group dedicated to furthering the work of inventor and philosopher R. Buckminster Fuller. Local projects also received the attention of Herman. He was involved with a number of projects in the Bridgeport area including several at Action for Bridgeport Community Development where he had been working up until the time of his passing. For Herman, his work was about more than promoting an agenda. He had deep convictions and indisputable integrity. His work reflected his strong belief in leveling the playing field for all Americans. He firmly believed that the government had a responsibility to provide for our most vulnerable citizens and ensure that their needs received the same attention as those more fortunate. Herman's energy, enthusiasm, and excitement not only made him a success but inspired others to greatness as well. He left an indelible mark on our communities, the State of Connecticut, and our Nation--a legacy that will undoubtedly be remembered by history. I extend my deepest sympathies to his wife, Monica; his children, David, Bill, Fay, and Louise; and their families. Herman Wolf was an extraordinary individual with a unique dedication to public service that touched the lives of many. Though he will be missed, his legacy will continue to inspire generations to come.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to join the Benedictines of Jesus Crucified of the Monastery of the Glorious Cross as they celebrate their 50th Anniversary--a milestone for this community of nineteen. Seventy-five years ago, Father Maurice Gaucheron, a priest on the staff of the Basilica of Montmatre in Paris and Suzanne Wrotnowska, the future Mother Marie des Deouleurs, began plans to open the doors of monastic life to women who, though interested in pursuing this path, were unable to do so due to their fragile health. From the very beginning, the Monastery of the Holy Cross formed on the Rule of Saint Benedictine which emphasizes a listening heart, obedience, silence, and humility. In 1930, during a Mass celebrated in the crypt of Montmatre, Mother Marie des Douleurs and the first sisters were consecrated and their journey began. The Monastery of the Glorious Cross in Branford, Connecticut was established just fifty years ago and is the only order of the Benedictines of Jesus Crucified in the United States. Houses of worship play a critical role in all of our communities. It is to these walls that so many turn in times of their greatest need. The Congregation at the Monastery of the Glorious Cross has always opened its doors to those in need of spiritual guidance and comfort. The public is welcomed to celebrate their daily Mass, the community sponsors a monthly day of recollection, and they also provide Mass cards and spiritual bouquets. It has been through their generosity and compassion that the Monastery of the Glorious Cross has become a local treasure. Every community should be so fortunate. Today, as they celebrate their Golden Jubilee, the Sisters of the Monastery of the Glorious Cross will reflect on their own history as well as all that they have given to our community. It is my great pleasure to join Sister Mary Agatha, the Superior of the community, and all of the sisters of the Monastery of the Glorious Cross as they celebrate this very special occasion. I am honored to extend my deepest thanks and appreciation to them for all of their good work.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, encouraging personal responsibility is something we all support in this institution--particularly with respect to rising rates of obesity. With two-thirds of premature deaths in the U.S. due to poor nutrition, physical inactivity and tobacco use, Americans do need to be more mindful of what they put in their bodies. But with only 12 percent of Americans eating a healthy diet and diabetes rates having risen 61 percent in the last decade alone, it is becoming increasingly clear that Congress is abdicating a responsibility of its own--we are failing to fashion policies that support Americans' efforts to adopt healthier lifestyles. Instead of shielding companies from litigation, we should be giving people the information they need to make the informed choices that exercise that personal responsibility. Today, Americans are eating out more frequently, spending about half of their food dollars at restaurants--a figure that has doubled since 1970. And everyone knows how much harder it is to eat healthily when they eat out. Little wonder children eat almost twice as many calories when they eat at a restaurant as they do when they eat at home--studies have shown that even trained nutritionists cannot estimate the calorie and fat content in a meal they do not prepare themselves. We need to be creative. For instance, I will be reintroducing legislation shortly, The Meal Education and Labeling Act, that would extend the kind of nutrition labeling you find on packaged foods at the store to include foods at fast food and other chain restaurants. It would require these chain restaurants to list calories, saturated plus trans fat and sodium on printed menus and calories on menu boards, giving consumers the necessary nutritional information to make healthy choices for themselves. That is the kind of balanced, innovative approach this body should be considering today to address obesity--that would be a real step toward helping encourage personal responsibility in food consumption while protecting industry and our Mom n' Pop restaurants. Instead, as we have seen countless times before, this majority has again chosen to use a very important public health issue to pursue a narrow and completely unrelated political agenda. Madam Chairman, we should do something about obesity in this country by empowering people to make informed decisions for themselves. But this bill is not the way to go about it.