Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure but a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to the life of one of the outstanding members of our community, Philip Horowitz. Philip was 80 years old when he passed away last month, and in that time he left an indelible mark on the city of New Haven. Emigrating from Russia, Philip's father, William, and his uncle, Jack, came to New Haven in 1913 and began selling fabric from a pushcart on Grand Avenue. With hard work, dedication and a dream, they opened a storefront nearby, and later, Horowitz Bros. moved to its home. In later years, Philip, his brother, Leonard, and their cousin, Arthur, took over the family business. I have often said that small businesses are the backbone of our Nation's economy. Through the years, Horowitz Bros. has been a fixture in downtown New Haven, outlasting a number of large department stores as well as smaller, family-owned businesses which have gradually disappeared. For the last 90 years, Horowitz Bros. has been a valued treasure in the city of New Haven, a testament to the American dream and to the invaluable place small business has in a community. Horowitz Bros. holds a special place in the hearts of employees and customers alike. I have fond memories of going with my mother to pick out fabrics for the dresses she would make for me as a child. While waiting for my mother to choose her fabrics, you could always find me rearranging the many spools of thread, a habit which I am sure caused some chaos, but was always met with a good-natured smile. It is not an exaggeration to say that Philip was the very heart and soul of the store. His dedication, compassion and generosity is well known to all who had the opportunity to meet him. Philip was often characterized as a good man, a friend to all. His warmth, kindness and gentle spirit touched the lives of so many, and it is in that way that he will always be remembered. I am proud to stand today to honor Philip Horowitz and all that he meant to the New Haven community. I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to his wife, Hilda, his brother, Leonard, and his entire family. New Haven has lost a true community treasure in Philip Horowitz; however, I know that his memory will continue to live in the hearts and minds of all who knew him.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate my mother, Luisa DeLauro, as she celebrates her 90th birthday on December 24th. She is-- in every sense of the word--a remarkable person--someone who made a good life for herself and her family from the humblest beginnings. From her, I learned the values I carry with me to this day--she taught me the meaning of hard work, of family and community. When I grew up, she worked in a sweatshop, sewing shirt collars for pennies. Everyday she would make me come by after school to see the horrible, cramped conditions. It is something I will never forget. The lesson was clear: work hard. Make something of yourself. Get a good education. She took her own lessons to heart, retiring 4 years ago after 35 years on the New Haven Board of Alderman--the longest serving member in its history. During that time, she touched countless lives. I will always remember the people sitting around my parents' kitchen table in Wooster Square in New Haven. There, I witnessed firsthand how she and my father helped solve the problems of people in our neighborhood. My mother knew the importance of helping people--she understood that politics was an avenue for change. She also understood that women had an obligation to participate in the political process. When I first ran for Congress in 1990, I found an article my mother wrote in the 10th ward Democratic newsletter in 1933--70 years ago. Amazingly, she wrote: It is not my intention to be critical, rather my motive in writing this article is to encourage the female members of this organization to take a more active part in its affairs. We are not living in the middle ages when a woman's part in life was merely to serve her master in her home, but we have gradually taken our place in every phase of human endeavor, and even in the here-to-for stronghold of the male sex: politics. I have noticed that the girls, unlike the men, are timid in asserting themselves, and many a good idea is lost, having been suppressed by its creator. Come on girls, let's make ourselves heard. And so, mom, I want to take this opportunity to say, ``You made yourself heard.'' You continue to make us all proud. Thank you and congratulations on your ninth decade. You are your daughter's greatest inspiration.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay special tribute to Calvin Wendel, whose quiet and dedicated service along Interstate 95 in Milford, Connecticut has helped keep our nation's highways safe and important goods and services moving through our region for the last 43 years. Cal has worked at the Secondi Bros. Truck Stop in Milford since it opened on July 1, 1960. With no other major truck stops in the area, it is highly visible and known in the truck stop industry due to its location. It is the first truck stop in New England off Interstate 95 that drivers come in contact with after leaving New Jersey. Over 120,000 vehicles a day travel past exit 40, Interstate 95 where Secondi is located, and the trucks that stop for service at Secondi are part of a fleet transporting over 72 percent of the goods we have at our homes and in our businesses. During his tenure at the Secondi Truck and Tire Repair Unit, Cal has serviced over 74,000 trucks. Over the years, his expertise has contributed to the safety and economic security of every one of us. Yet, as much as his technical experience is respected by those who stop regularly at Secondi on their way through Connecticut, it is the personal touch he adds to his service and extends to those around him, dedication, high values, and respect for people, that have endeared him to his customers and peers. As one of my constituents once said, ``Trucks keep America rolling!'' I urge my colleagues to join with me to honor the service Calvin Wendel has provided to all of us over the years, helping to keep American trucks rolling.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, only a few weeks after Congress eliminated the guarantee of health care under Medicare for every senior in America, just in time for the holidays we are telling every working person in this country that another guarantee is also a thing of the past: overtime pay. The passage of the Fair Standards Labor Act nearly 70 years ago safeguarded workers' rights in this country. It promised workers time and a half for the time they worked beyond the 40-hour workweek: a little extra cash to put a roof over their families' heads, to buy groceries, and pay their medical bills. On average, these extra wages account for roughly 25 percent of their total earnings. This bill, in clear defiance of the will of both Chambers of Congress, breaks that promise. This bill allows the Department of Labor to gut the Fair Standards Labor Act, effectively repealing the 40-hour workweek and forcing 8 million Americans, including police officers, firefighters, construction workers, nurses, and EMTs, to take a second job to make up for those lost earnings; this at a time when we already have millions of people out of work, where income is declining, poverty is increasing, and health care costs are rising. This bill opens the door to mandatory overtime, allowing employers to force millions of workers to stay late with little notice and without adequately compensating them. It will leave countless working women the worse off, spending less time with their families as they put more of their hard-earned wages to afford increased child care and transportation costs. The Republican majority has moved effectively to tear up our country's long-standing contract with the working people of this country, a contract that says that hard work deserves to be rewarded, especially when that work is above and beyond the call of duty, after normal working hours. By ending overtime pay, by denying a fair extension of unemployment benefits, this bill embodies that assault on America's working families. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for those families today, to make a difference in their lives, and say ``no'' to this bill and oppose it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this is a defining moment for the senior citizens of this country. For years we have tried to provide a prescription drug benefit to help them with the rising cost of medicine, but this bill does nothing about the central issue, price. It prohibits the government from using its market power to negotiate the best price for drugs and does nothing to allow Americans to import drugs from countries like Canada where prices are lower. As a result, prices will continue to rise and over time wipe out any gains that seniors realize from the new benefit which does not even begin until 2006. Rather, the bill is the first step toward eliminating the universal guaranteed benefit that defines Medicare. For the first time, it caps the amount of money that can be spent on the program, meaning services that are guaranteed today will not be guaranteed tomorrow. It creates a two-tiered health care system, one for the affluent, one for everyone else. For as many as 10 million seniors, premium support will force them to give up the doctors that they have been with for years, force them into HMOs that will cut services and cost more. So today we consider more than a prescription drug benefit. We consider the future of our contract with the families in this country, a contract that says that after a lifetime of hard work, paying taxes, that we have a moral obligation to ensure our parents and our grandparents have a dignified retirement. By ending the guarantee of equal health care provided to every senior in this country for nearly four decades, we are breaking that contract. I was not elected to preside over the dismantling of Medicare, the embodiment of our country's shared values, in exchange for a feeble prescription drug benefit that does nothing to bring down the prices of prescription drugs. We should send this bill back to the drawing board, do whatever it takes to deliver a real drug benefit that maintains Medicare's promise to senior citizens. We owe them nothing less.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise against a prescription drug bill that prohibits the government from using its market power to negotiate the best price for prescription drugs, the central issue of this debate and concern of the people of this country.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, in the more than thirteen years that I have been honored to serve in this distinguished institution, I have never seen a piece of legislation less crafted with the public interest in mind than the one we discuss today--the Energy Policy Conference Report (H.R. 6). It consists entirely of subsidies to corporations and rollbacks of environmental protection laws. it is a virtual grab-bag of giveaways to corporate interests. To say nothing of the severe public health threat posed as a result of the environmental exemptions included in the bill affecting the air we breathe and the water we drink, I would specifically like to raise my strong opposition to two provisions that exemplify the special interest giveaways in this twelve hundred-plus page bill. The first permits a controversial Long Island Sound energy cable, entitled the Cross Sound Cable, to stay activated despite being found in violation of both state and federal permits. The language, listed under Title XIV, Sec. 1441 of Subtitle D, was slipped into the bill by the energy company's newly hired lobbyist, former New York Senator Alfonse D'Amato, and would allow the Cross Sound Cable to remain activated unless rescinded by an act of Congress. It disregards pending litigation by the Connecticut Attorney General pertaining to the safety of the cable and trumping the regulatory authority of Connecticut and the Army Corps of Engineers, which together govern the installation of such transmission cables. Also included in this bill, under Title XIV, Sec. 1442 of Subtitle D, is a provision, which subordinates all state and federal agencies to the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission when it comes to the laying of natural gas pipelines. The language would pave the way for the construction of the Islander East gas pipeline across Long Island Sound, stretching from Branford, Connecticut and Shoreham, New York. As a result of this controversial provision that will have wide implications on the construction and appeals of all natural gas pipelines, the Islander East pipeline will be installed over and above the objections of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. These provisions disregard the needs of our state's economy, our environment and the voices of millions of Connecticut citizens who are directly affected by these provisions. The Republican leadership and high-priced corporate lobbyists have determined that they--and not Connecticut's citizens or elected officials--know what is best for our state. This is a disgraceful giveaway to special interests at the expense of citizens in my state, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. As high health care prices continue to erode the living standards of middle- class families across this country, the rising price of prescription drugs remains front and center in the eyes of seniors. A recent report by Families USA concluded that the prices of the 50 most frequently used prescription drugs by seniors rose by nearly 3\1/2\ times the rate of inflation. That is a problem for them, their children, and their children's children. We all have a stake in driving down prescription drug prices. In July this body abrogated its responsibility to address the problem of soaring drug prices. It barred the government from negotiating lower prices for seniors. It did worse than nothing. Since that time the call for prescription drug importation, giving ordinary Americans the choice that they are taking on their own, out of desperation, has reached a critical mass. Today the American people know that importation would save them billions of dollars, $600 billion in the next decade, savings passed directly onto the consumer. They know it is a safe option, because they know that the U.S. drug companies themselves reimport brand name medications from their overseas plants, $14.7 billion worth in 2001. They know that the reimportation bill passed this body in late July. It guaranteed safety. I would repeat that our bill not only required drugs reimported from other countries be FDA approved, but also that the facilities they are manufactured in are FDA approved as well. Add to that requirement in this bill that all prescription drugs use counterfeit-resistant packaging, and there is little doubt that every drug purchased here in the United States, reimported or otherwise, would be safer than the drugs that are available today. The FDA is so concerned about safety then they ought to take a look at food safety in the United States. They have jurisdiction over imported foods coming into the United States, and only less than 1 percent, 1 to 2 percent of all imported food is inspected coming into this country. And yet the FDA will certify that that food is the safest food supply in the world. And yet FDA-approved drugs from FDA-approved facilities will not be certified as being safe. Tell us, on whose side is the FDA? This is not an issue of safety, it is an issue of price. This Congress needs to stop acting as the wholly-owned subsidiary of the pharmaceutical companies, and step up to its responsibilities to help consumers. We need to vote for this motion because it is the only opportunity for this body to vote for lower cost prescription drugs. The Medicare prescription drug policy that has come out of the conference in this body, decimates and destroys Medicare, does nothing about the high cost of prescription drugs. And unless we pass this motion to instruct, there will be no opportunity to do what is the right thing for America's families, for America's seniors, and that is to provide them with the opportunity to get their prescription medications at a price that they can afford in order to save their lives. That is what this issue is about today. It is about providing people in this country the wherewithal to afford prescription drugs. Madam Speaker, let us vote for this motion to instruct. Let us do the right thing for seniors and for the families in this country.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand to join the many family, friends, and colleagues who have gathered today to extend my sincere congratulations to Leanne G. Charette on the occasion of her retirement marking the end of a thirty-two year career with the Internal Revenue Service. When the average American thinks about the Internal Revenue Service, often they only contemplate the time, energy, and paperwork it takes to file an annual tax return. While the Internal Revenue Service is charged with the task of collecting revenue, they are also responsible for ensuring the protection of American citizens from fraud and evasion. Every day we hear the stories of corporations and individuals who seek to undermine the government through waste, mismanagement, and fraud. It is through the efforts of Special Agents like Ms. Charette that American taxpayers are saved millions in lost revenue. Throughout her career, Leanne Charette has demonstrated a unique commitment to public service. As a Special Agent with the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service, she has been an active member of several complex investigations. As a member of the Health Care Fraud Task Force, she worked with representatives from several federal agencies to identify abuses in the health care field which were used to help develop health care reforms. More recently, Ms. Charette worked on a task force investigating a massive insurance fraud responsible for bilking insurance companies in several states of assets in excess of two hundred million dollars. Her efforts helped to identify several problems with the industry and the results will go a long way in helping to establish solutions to these issues. More importantly, the task force has been able to recover most of the stolen assets which will be distributed to the victims. Too often, we overlook the tireless efforts of those in public service. Throughout her career, Ms. Charette has exemplified all that a public servant should be. Her commitment and diligence has earned her the respect and admiration of her colleagues and all of those with whom she has worked. For her many years of dedicated service, I am proud to rise today to extend my heart-felt congratulations to Leanne G. Charette as she joins her husband, Dick, in retirement. My very best wishes to you both for many more years of health and happiness.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention to the following column which ran in the Washington Post last month. Women's rights are a critical component of any nation's development, and I commend Morocco's King Mohammed VI for his call to improve the status of women in his nation. [From the Washington Post, Oct. 16, 2003] A King's Appeal (By Jim Hoagland) Western democracies won the Cold War by shaking open closed societies and exposing their failures and crimes to citizens who then refused to go on living that way. The great political challenge of today is to induce similar change in Arab nations and other Islamic countries that do not respect the rights and dignity of their own citizens. Think of it as collateral repair: The coming wave of epochal change must also be driven by internal forces, with restrained but committed support from abroad. The ultimate goal is reform within Islam conceived and carried out by Muslim leaders, scholars and civic groups, substantively welcomed by the West. And that reform must begin with the role and rights of women in the Islamic world. A question posed last week in as important a speech as I have read recently makes that unblinkingly clear: ``How can society achieve progress while women, who represent half the nation, see their rights violated and suffer as a result of injustice, violence and marginalization, notwithstanding the dignity and justice granted them by our glorious religion?'' The irrefutable logic about the high cost of institutionalized gender discrimination was voiced by Morocco's King Mohammed VI last Friday at the opening of Parliament in Rabat. He then outlined far-reaching changes in family and divorce laws for the kingdom that would effectively lessen the intrusive reach of religious authorities into gender issues. I am aware that speeches are given in the Arab world, as well as in Washington, to postpone or avoid the actions they describe. And in fairness to the globe's 1.2 billion Muslims, it has to be noted that all religions have been used at some point as a tool of control by unscrupulous political and religious leaders, and misogynists of all stripes--as Islam is used today far too often. But Mohammed VI outlined highly specific remedies and committed both his religious and political authority to getting them enacted. And he repeatedly invoked the language of the Koran to denounce the unfairness of polygamy, marriage contracts, guardianships and divorce laws as they are practiced in his country and by implication elsewhere in the Muslim world. As befits a 40-year-old monarch whose followers call him ``the Commander of the Faithful'' and who claims descent from the prophet Muhammad, the king argued that solutions can and should be found in Islam. But his words also implicitly acknowledged that Islam has been deformed into an instrument of repression in much of the Arab world and elsewhere. Consider this: Two-thirds of all illiterate Arab adults are women, who are kept out of schools by custom, lack of resources and, in many places, by determined opposition from religious authorities. The Moroccan king took aim at a sickness that deprives many Islamic societies of the talents and productive labor of half their populations. Morocco perches on the North African Atlantic shoulder of the Arab world. The immediate, direct consequences of Mohammed VI's words in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere may be slight. (They went largely unreported in the United States as well.) But the king's embrace of this cause represents both catalyst and reflection of broader change that is rapidly bearing down on the region. It is part generational change as aging autocrats give way to younger leaders. Change is also being stirred by the deposing of a uniquely evil regime in Iraq, a thunderclap that is reverberating throughout the region, and by the pressures of the shadow war being fought between global terrorists and the U.S.-led coalition. Mohammed VI's speech makes clear that he was not intimidated by the bombings in his country last May carried out by Islamic fundamentalists tied to al Qaeda. Nor does he seem cowed by the reactionary religious establishments that have contributed so much to the backwardness and turmoil now evident in Islamic nations. An effective reform movement is straining to be born. In the same week the Moroccan king spoke, the Nobel Committee awarded the 2003 peace prize to Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian lawyer who leads the fight in her country for women's rights and democracy--two causes that cannot be separated in the Islamic world. This is a good example of collateral repair: restrained but focused Western encouragement of reform. Mohammed VI provides a standard to which Arabs, Iranians, Pakistanis and others can and should be held. They are not being asked to live up to Western standards by improving the opportunities and lives of ``their'' women. This is a descendant of the prophet, not Gloria Steinem, who is telling them that they must change or fall ever deeper into self- destructive decline.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Let me be very quick, and there are others who will respond to what my colleague has said, and I appreciate his comments. I said in my remarks that the commitment to children with special needs was reneged on in 1975. We cannot let that happen again. In this current year, the Republican majority committed to $2.2 billion. They have reneged on that promise. No, in fact, we should not cut back on Pell grants, on No Child Left Behind, not any of the other education programs. What, in fact, we ought to cut back on is that $93,000 a year that we are giving in a tax cut to the 184,000 millionaires in this country. That is why we are short on this effort. That is why we are short- changing children with special needs. The fact of the matter is that the Republicans would have cut IDEA in 1996 by $88 million; 1997 by $279 million; in 2003, $500 million below the President's budget. They have every single year worked at cutting the amount of money for children with special needs. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer the motion to instruct that I presented yesterday. This motion will instruct House conferees for the fiscal year 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill to insist on the Senate funding level for part B of the special education funding, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. IDEA part B is the main vehicle with which the Federal Government provides its contribution to States toward educating children with disabilities. Twenty-eight years ago, Congress made a promise to students, families and communities around this country, a promise that said that the Federal Government would do its part to ensure that the more than 6.5 million children with disabilities and special needs in this country would have the same educational opportunities as every other child. It is a promise that this body has never lived up to, a promise quite honestly that this body has never even attempted to live up to. This shortfall creates a huge burden on local communities and denies full opportunity to all students, with or without disabilities. And today in a time of unprecedented deficits at the State and Federal level alike, special education becomes just another in a long line of unfunded mandates that the Federal Government has passed on to the States. But we have an obligation to fund special education for children who have special needs. It is a moral obligation. With the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975, Congress agreed that it would pay 40 percent of that bill. Only, it never has. What that has meant for the last 28 years is that the burden of meeting the mandates of special education has been placed largely on the shoulders of local communities. As the cost of educating students with disabilities continues to rapidly increase, there is little doubt that these increased costs are being paid for at the expense of other student services and programs. Moreover, this Republican majority cannot even keep the commitments they made earlier this year, both in the budget resolution and during the vote on the reauthorization of IDEA in April to provide a $2.2 billion increase for special education over fiscal year 2003. Sadly, the House Labor-HHS bill only provides a $1 billion increase which is demonstrated on this chart, promises made and promises broken. In my State of Connecticut, which faces a billion-dollar budget deficit, school districts are paying $409 million more for special education than they did 10 years ago, a 76 percent cost increase. During the 2000-2001 school year, nearly 19 percent of the total education expenditures in the State were directed to special education students with some individual districts exceeding 25 percent, meaning one out of every four education dollars was going to special education. This is a situation not unique to my district or my State. Right now, 47 States are experiencing budget deficits. If you ask virtually any municipality in the Nation what their number one budgetary concern is, they will tell you, without hesitation, special education. They simply cannot bear the strain the Federal Government is putting on them year after year. The strain will continue should Congress adopt the special education funding levels included in the House Labor, Health and Human Services, Education appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. That bill fell $1.2 billion below what is needed to even put IDEA on the path to full funding by 2010. In my opinion, an abdication of our responsibility to our States and our children alike and a situation in which no one wins. What is needed here is leadership. Our States are crying out for it. Parents are crying out for it. I wish we could call on the President to intervene on behalf of children with special needs. But President Bush's special education request would have amounted to the smallest increase for special education in 5 years. So the responsibility falls to us to rise to the occasion, match what the other body has done by meeting our commitment once and for all to our children and our States and provide that extra $1.2 billion. The time for using the issue of special education as a political football is over. As I said before, it is a game in which no one wins. And as representatives for 50 States and the more than 6\1/2\ million children who need our help, the Congress is obliged, obliged to provide this $1.2 billion in funding in this bill and obliged to promote the capacity of our country to act together on what are indisputably shared values. Mr. Speaker, the Congress reneged on its commitment to children with special needs in 1975. We cannot allow it to renege on that commitment again. We must meet our obligations. That is what this motion to instruct is about. And I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just make one or two comments about what my colleagues have said. First of all, and this is not my commentary, but CRS's commentary, that if we continue to go in the direction that we are going in with $1 billion, we are never going to get to full funding. I commend the CRS data and material to my colleagues. Secondly, the fact of the matter is, as my colleagues have said before, the issue is about choices. It is not only about choices, but it is about priorities; and those priorities in terms of our budget are fundamentally determined by where our values are on these issues. Mr. Speaker, I submit to my colleagues that when the choice, the most important and fundamental choice was made in this body about trillions of dollars of tax cuts, $93,000 a year to the 184,000 millionaires in this country, that was a choice. It is the choice, the fundamental choice which is starving the Federal Government of the resources that it needs to meet its public commitments; not willy-nilly commitments, but commitments where we have said we are going to put up so much money for special education, and, you, State of Connecticut, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, you put up so much money. We are reneging on those commitments because of the fundamental choice that was made by the Republican President of the United States, by the Republican House majority, by the Senate House majority to fund the tax cuts. That is the priority, not special education, not Pell grants, not let no child be left behind, not any of the education programs that we view as critical to the opportunities that young people have in this country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. There is no doubt in my mind that tonight what we were going to hear from the other side of the aisle is about how much funding for special education has been increased in the past years. But there is no denying the fact that the Republicans broke their promises to the Nation's 6.7 million special needs children this year when they denied the promised $2.2 billion increase in the Republican fiscal year 2004 Labor-HHS bill. Let me just say that it is true that promises for IDEA part B State grants, the main Federal program for which the Federal Government finances special education, have increased from $2.3 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $8.9 billion today, an increase of $6.6 billion. But it is equally true, equally true, and understand this, that if the Labor-HHS bills put forth by House Republicans over that period of time would have been enacted into law, the $6.6 billion increase actually provided for IDEA would have been cut nearly in half, because if House Republicans had had their way, they would have spent $2.8 billion less on special education between fiscal years 1996 and 2003. I am going to briefly, briefly read my colleagues the facts in these years and the Republican activity on these issues. In 2003, the majority failed to pass a Labor-HHS bill because they wanted to avoid voting on the Bush education cuts. However, the HHS bill, H.R. 246, was introduced by the very fine chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies. The chairman offered the bill, and it was the House position for the purpose of the conference negotiations. That bill included $8 billion for IDEA part B State grants, $500 million less than the Bush IDEA request and $846 million less than the amount ultimately that was enacted into law. In 2002, we had a bipartisan year. Democrats and Republicans supported a healthy increase for special education: $186 million over the final conference level of $7.5 billion. In 2001, the House Republican Labor-HHS bill was a shocking $850 million below what was the $6.3 billion included in the grants and in the conference agreement. In 2000, the House Republican bill was $179 million below the final conference level of $5 billion for special education. In 1999, the House bill provided the same amount, $4.3 billion, which was ultimately enacted into law. In 1998, another bipartisan year, House Republicans initially proposed $3.4 billion for IDEA grants, $375 million below the final amount secured by the Democrats in the Labor-HHS conference agreement, which provided a total of $3.8 billion. In 1997, the House Republican bill would have frozen IDEA at $2.3 billion, $279 million below the request, and a whopping $784 million below the final conference agreement. In fiscal year 1996, House Republicans proposed to freeze the special education grant at $2.3 billion. That was the amount ultimately enacted into law, a cut of $88 million below the Clinton request. In summary, Mr. Speaker, a careful examination of the Republican record on IDEA funding paints a less rosy picture than my colleagues would like to portray. In 5 of the last 8 years, the House Republicans have provided less than the amount actually enacted into law for IDEA part B State grants. Democrats insisted that we provide those increases. Democrats want to fulfill our commitments to the 6.7 million special needs children before we begin to provide super-sized tax cuts to the Nation's well- off and wealthiest citizens. Under a funding scenario of $1 billion per year, as is in the Republican Labor-HHS bill, we will never, never meet the goal of fully funding for IDEA. It was the majority party, once again, that promised a $2.2 billion increase this year for IDEA. 216 Republicans voted for the increase in the 2004 budget resolution; 217 Republicans voted again for the increase in the IDEA reauthorization bill. Democrats say this evening, on the issue of special education for our youngsters, a moral obligation which we have committed to, which we have committed our States to, what Democrats say this evening is keep your promises to those 6.7 million children who, without the proper funding, will not ever realize their dreams, their aspirations for opportunity for their future and a way in which they can hold on to the American Dream of education. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to instruct.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

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

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss something I believe goes virtually unsaid in this institution every day, not merely the ramifications of what Congress does on a daily basis, but rather the underlying intentions of those in the majority. And that is how this majority, in concert with the administration, is acting to remake how our Nation governs and thinks of itself. Indeed, it is remaking the very role of government itself. I think it is particularly appropriate that we discuss this matter at a time when Congress is heading toward its annual appropriations endgame, when many of the most important budgetary decisions affecting millions of citizens are being made behind closed doors by a handful in this Republican majority. So this week I am going to be talking about Republican efforts to privatize functions that are currently the responsibility of government and specifically how that relates to our failure to meet public commitments. Let me be clear: the goal is not more government. Far from it. In most cases, we want our business enterprises and the market to flourish. But there are some very important areas where we want community values, not the market, to prevail or to set limits on behavior. There is a reason we have public schools, environmental regulation, and retirement programs, because there are things we want to ensure for all individuals, whatever their station in life or wherever they live in the country. For nearly 75 years, our approach to government has reflected the idea that our society can act with a shared sense of purpose and responsibility to address tasks before our country. But it is no secret that this leadership has some very different ideas about the role of the Federal Government and helping us meet those challenges. Accordingly, the budget Republicans put forward earlier this year was designed simply and efficiently to destroy the capacity and obligation of the government to provide key social support. Their plans are to debase the quality of public services so much that citizens will give up and turn, out of necessity, to the private market. The examples are many, and they are far-reaching. The twin pillars of our retirement security safety net, Social Security and Medicare, environmental protection, transportation safety, education, all public commitments historically the responsibility of the Federal Government, all undermined by this administration and majority. Republicans pass legislation to create new tests and higher standards for public schools, then support a budget that cuts the funding to enforce those standards by $8 billion, in effect guaranteeing failure and providing a justification for the shift to vouchers and private education. Their Medicare plans offer prescription drug coverage for seniors, but moves seniors into the private insurance market and into HMOs for their Medicare coverage. The budget cuts coverage for Medicare at the same time the administration reduces hospital reimbursements, denies beneficiaries information on coverage and limits rights of appeal on denial of coverage. All are part of a concerted effort to turn Medicare into essentially a Third World health program for seniors. They want to privatize Medicare. The story with Medicaid, child care, Head Start, and job training is little different. They propose to turn these programs into block grants for States, offering less and less funding. They say they are offering Governors flexibility; but considering the fiscal crises our States are experiencing, this becomes flexibility only in deciding how to cut services, the flexibility to decide which recipients to jettison. As a Member of the Committee on the Budget, I was privy earlier this year to witness Republicans on the committee taking the breathtaking step of instructing other congressional committees to cut Federal mandatory programs by $98 billion, in effect an instruction to reduce benefits and to limit eligibility. If it had been successful, it would have forced the government to cut funding, but not to end the commitment that we have in each of these areas. So although America has committed itself to helping disabled veterans, to providing loans for college education, to offering school lunches to children and providing school assistance, housing and health care to families, the government would have been forced to breach those commitments and those contracts. Now as we near the appropriations end game, we are seeing the impact of these budgetary sleights of hand. For example, last week we saw the imminent privatization of 69 air traffic control towers. This despite the fact we have the most productive and safest air traffic control system in the world. Or ``worker efficiency studies'' at Department of the Interior designed to justify the shift of public jobs to private corporations, the results of which studies have been dubious, to say the least. We have spent $16 million in outsourcing studies at the Bureau of Land Management that have generated $600,000 in savings; $18.6 million in outsourcing studies at the Forest Service that found that 47 out of 1,000 jobs studied should be handed over to private contractors. The only waste of public funds found in these studies was their own price tags. And these are but two examples of Republicans seeking to establish that citizens cannot depend on public commitments--even ones that embody America's shared values about service to country, opportunity and help for those most in need. The time has come to call them out on this bait-and-switch maneuver-- to fight this initiative and promote the capacity of our country to act together on our shared values. And so I look forward to further special orders in the coming days and weeks on this subject, and invite colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in this discussion. I think it will be a very enlightening one, indeed. Mr. Speaker, I will continue over the next several days and several weeks to talk about how this administration and this majority is not about cutting one program after another, but, in fact, starving the Federal Government of the resources it needs in order to meet its public commitments.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join with staff, clients, and the Greater New Haven community in celebrating the 90th Anniversary of the Clifford W. Beers Guidance Clinic of New Haven, Connecticut. This is a milestone for a special organization. ``A pen rather than a lance has been my weapon of offense and defense; for with its point I have felt sure that I should one day prick the civic conscience into a compassionate activity, and thus bring into a neglected field earnest men and women who should act as champions for those afflicted thousands least able to fight for themselves.'' This passage, taken from Clifford W. Beers' A Mind That Found Itself, has and continues to be the guiding principle of the clinic and its staff. Since its inception in 1913, the clinic has strived to address the critical needs of the mentally ill and has expanded its mission to assist children and families who face such crises as violence, teenage suicide, drug use, homelessness, physical and sexual abuse, and the impact of AIDS on children. Clifford Whittingham Beers, one of the first mental health advocates in America, founded the clinic as a compassionate alternative to early psychiatric institutions where the mentally ill were treated. His own battle with mental illness inspired Beers to the belief that those suffering from ``diseases of the mind'' would have the best chance to become healthy and productive if they received treatment and understanding in their own communities. His work and unparalleled advocacy changed the face of American psychiatry. Today, the clinic, working with local agencies and organizations, is able to provide a multitude of programs to those most in need. The partnerships they have established allow them to provide comprehensive services to their clients--making a real difference in the lives of thousands of children and families. Just recently, I had the opportunity to visit the Clifford Beers Clinic and was touched by the story of a man whose children received care at the clinic. The pure gratitude that this man expressed to the clinic and its staff for being there for him and his family is indescribable. In building upon the vision of Clifford Beers, the clinic has been able to provide one of life's most precious gifts--hope. Through its gift of hope, the Clifford Beers Clinic has left an indelible mark on our community and the thousands of lives they have touched. For its many invaluable contributions to our community and for all of their work on behalf of our children and families, I am proud to stand today and extend my sincere congratulations to the Clifford W. Beers Guidance Clinic on their 90th Anniversary.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join in paying tribute to one of Connecticut's finest school administrators and community activists. People like Thomas Serra are what make our communities strong. From his important work educating the young people of Middletown for the past 30 years to his involvement in many other settings, he has dedicated his life to public service. I often speak of our Nation's need for talented, creative, enthusiastic teachers who are ready to help our children learn and grow. Tom Serra is just that kind of educator. Throughout his career, he has touched the lives of thousands of children--ensuring that they had the skills and tools necessary to be successful in their adult lives. Tom began as an English instructor at Vinal Technical High School where he would later take on the role of athletic coordinator. Fourteen years ago, Tom moved into administration becoming the school's assistant director and for the last six years, he has been leading Vinal as the Director. Public education is the cornerstone of the American dream, leveling the playing field and providing every child with the opportunity to make the most of his or her talents. It is talented professionals like Tom who truly shape the leaders of tomorrow. He is dedicated to the positive development of not only our children's intellect, but their character development as well. In speaking to Tom, his remarkable commitment and dedication to his students and Vinal is undeniable and I am sure his presence will be missed. As a lifelong resident of Middletown, Tom is deeply involved in the life of his community. In serving one term as Mayor, actively participating on the Democratic Town Committee, the City Council, the Police Commission, as well as a myriad of other municipal committees and local service organizations, he has become one of Middletown's most respected and highly-regarded leaders. I am confident that even in his retirement he will remain a strong and vocal advocate for Middletown and its residents. Today, as Tom celebrates his retirement, I would like to express my deepest thanks and appreciation for his tireless efforts on behalf of the City of Middletown. He is a leader who is second to none, and his talent and commitment have enriched our lives. It is with great pleasure that I join his wife, Maryann; his children, Jason and Christopher; as well as the many family, friends, and community members who have gathered this evening to wish Tom many more years of health and happiness.