Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Every Member of the House should support this motion to recommit which bans the Department of Homeland Security from contracting with corporations which operate in America but incorporate overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Corporate expatriates should not continue to benefit from government largess, but they do, billing $2 billion a year in government contracts. Not only have these companies abandoned their responsibilities to our country, they put responsible corporate citizens at a disadvantage. We benefit from private sector expertise, and we want to reward their creativity and their entrepreneurial spirit, but we should not reward them for refusing to pay their taxes and their responsibility as U.S. citizens. The truth is the war on terrorism costs money. $500 million of the revenue lost by those corporations could buy 500 explosive detection systems, which are badly needed at airports across this country. These companies have abandoned our country at a critical time in our history. They leave seniors, our soldiers fighting overseas, and our good corporate citizens with the cost of war on terrorism. They should not be rewarded with contracts from the very department charged with securing our safety. They should pay American taxes on American profits. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means where a similar amendment was passed.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do. How much time do I have remaining?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which would take a bad idea and make it worse. We all understand the need to safeguard sensitive information relating to national security. The FOIA statute already contains exemptions for critical infrastructure information, confidential business information, for national security information. In effect, the tools are in place to protect this kind of information without curtailing the public's right to know. This provision defines infrastructure information so broadly that it covers all kinds of lobbying requests, even lobbyists asking for liability protection. In essence and in effect, this provision is a lobbyists' protection act. An energy company could shield itself from liability from radioactive materials that leaked from its nuclear power plant, and lobbyists and industry officials would be allowed to communicate with Department staff charged with critical decisions without any public disclosure. We saw that already with the protracted fight with the administration, with the Energy Department, where they were forced to turn over documents that showed much of the White House energy plan was written by the energy lobbyists. We have another example of the kind of information that could be kept from the public if this amendment passes. After a fatal Amtrak derailment in southern Iowa, investigation showed that a stretch of privately owned railroad track which suffered from over 1,500 defects was partly to blame. The FOIA exemptions in this bill would have kept this information, which is essential to prevent another disaster, from the public; and expanding those exemptions to other agencies would only keep more health and safety information from the public. We should not be using this bill to curtail the public's right to know about critical health information, safety information. We should not use it, if you will, as a way to give corporations a way to avoid accountability for their actions. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. I seek the time to control in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. We are not divided here today on the benefits of free trade. We are divided on how to best achieve it--to compete on a level playing field in the global economy. Fast Track turns it back on hard working families. It will not stem the tide of lost jobs and lower labor standards seen since the passage of NAFTA. Fast Track is not the answer. It makes protection of environmental and labor rights non-mandatory. It guts provisions that ensure that countries do not use child labor to gain advantage over the United States. We should be working to increase the safety of workers, not expose them to new dangers and new insecurities. This agreement eliminates common sense trade assistance reform that would have covered worker dislocation caused by factories moving offshore. So, if you lose your job due to increased imports you are eligible for coverage. But if you lose your job because your factory shut down and moved offshore to Asia, you are not. Mr. Speaker, that isn't right. Increasingly, American families are struggling everyday to make ends meet. Congress has the opportunity and the responsibility to ensure that American values define the international market and that our citizens build solid futures. Show that Congress cares about and understands America's hopes and fears for the future and vote ``no'' on Fast Track.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. We may have disagreements regarding some of the specifics of this legislation, but its goal--ensuring Americans' safety--is something we all support. So why then was a provision slipped into this legislation to extend the deadline by which the Transportation Security Administration must screen all baggage for explosives? Why are we risking the safety of the American people when we already have the certified technology necessary to ensure that every bag can be screened? Some suggest that we must extend the deadline because we are awaiting the development of better technology down the road, as there always is, Mr. Chairman. I am not willing to risk another year of randomly screening a few bags when we have the technology to screen all of them now while we wait for a superior technology a year from now. By then, it might very well be too late. If we must revisit this issue in a year and begin upgrading the equipment, so be it. No price is too high when it comes to ensuring the safety of the American people. But without this amendment, we put American lives needlessly at risk.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I have been proud to work with Chairman Armey, Ranking Member Pelosi and all the members of the Select Committee to craft this legislation. Every Member of the House came to this effort with one goal, to create a department that will help us win the war on terrorism and protect our citizens from future attacks. We have no greater obligation under this Constitution. We share the goal, but we differ on the details. And while we have made great strides toward the goal, we cannot afford to ignore the details. We face an enemy who leaves us no room for error and we owe the American people nothing less than getting this right the first time. There are several areas where I believe we have made real progress, due in large part to the hard work of our committees. I am very pleased that the chairman heeded the bipartisan recommendation of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and declined the administration's request to transfer health functions from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control to the new Department. On a bipartisan recommendation of the Committee on Appropriations, we removed provisions that would have given the administration unprecedented power to transfer funds without congressional oversight. And the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) worked together to find a bipartisan compromise on the visa issue that was accepted by the White House and three committees. No easy task. However, very legitimate concerns still exist. I disagree with the committee's decision to extend the deadline for the Transportation Security Agency to check baggage on airlines. The American public and their children should feel safe on those airlines that the airplane is not going to explode. The Secretary of Transportation told us he could meet the deadlines over and over again. I am also concerned about provisions that broaden the FOIA exemption which undermine the civil service protections for 170,000 Federal workers, both union and nonunion. That particular provision goes against the unanimous bipartisan vote of the Committee on Government Reform. I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not make in order my amendment which would have banned the Homeland Security Department from contracting with corporations that are owned and operated in the United States who incorporate themselves on paper overseas for the sole reason of avoiding U.S. taxes. These corporations have abandoned our country at a critical time in our history, leaving senior citizens, soldiers who are fighting overseas, and companies who are doing the right thing, to pay the costs of the war on terrorism. They should not be rewarded for putting profits over patriotism with the contracts from the very department that is charged with screening our homeland and securing our homeland. I am optimistic that we can address these problems. And with regard to my amendment, all we are asking these corporations to do is to pay American taxes on American profits. These companies should not abandon the United States of America at a time in its greatest need. The President has told us that we are on a wartime footing. And when these companies take their revenue overseas, they put that burden of taxation on working men and women and those who are fighting overseas. Details do matter. As I said before, we owe the American people nothing less than getting this right the first time. We all want to make America safe.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time. I stand here today in thanks to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), and I want to express how proud I am to join with him on this resolution. I will explain why to my colleagues. So many people here know about my own set of health circumstances. Sixteen years ago, I was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. There is a moment when they tell you that you have cancer in which you go blank. You are not quite listening to anything that the doctor is telling you; you are only trying to figure out whether or not you are going to live or you are going to die. Ovarian cancer is a stealth disease. It does not know a political party; it does not know age; it does not know religious background; it just strikes. What is often the case is that women do not know they have ovarian cancer until the late stages, and that is often too late. By some, I say random luck, but I always view that someone was watching over me; I was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in the first stage so that it was treatable, though 16 years ago we did not have all of the new technology and this wonderful opportunity that we have to see expanded research by looking at blood samples and determining from the protein in those blood samples whether or not you have ovarian cancer. But it was random, and no one should live or die by randomness. We have an opportunity with this resolution to move forward in that early detection of ovarian cancer, and in these last 16 years, we have been unable to come forward with a screen, something like a mammogram which has been so helpful in determining the early stages of breast cancer so that we can save lives. That is what this resolution is about. It is about saving women's lives, because almost 14,000 women will die this year with ovarian cancer. If we had that screen, we could save 90 percent of them. They could go and be with their families, with their husbands, with their children, and have good lives. I know my colleagues will do the right thing on this resolution. Let us take advantage of modern technology, of biomedical research, and let us bring hope to the women of this country and their survival. I say ``thank you'' from the bottom of my heart to Steve Israel, who asked me to join him on this resolution, and I say ``thank you'' to God every day for giving me my life back and my opportunity to serve in this institution, because this is the institution that can make things happen. We can save lives with this resolution.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan Nurse Reinvestment Act, and I thank the gentlewoman from California for her commitment to addressing our Nation's nursing shortage. She has worked so hard to ensure this body could take the first steps in addressing the concerns of nurses and the issues which have plagued the nursing profession. In my home state of Connecticut, more than 3,200 nurses have left the State or given up their licenses since 1996. Nurse vacancy rates are up 50 percent since that time, and the number of newly licensed nurses is down 25 percent from 4 years ago. Further, the average age of licensed nurses in my state is 45, compared to the national average of 42. There is a widening gap between the increasing need for nursing care and the number of women and men who will be there to provide the care that their patients need. These statistics only begin to indicate the severity of our nursing shortage, one that mirrors what is happening nationally. Nurses play a critical role and are often underappreciated in our health care system. Anyone who has spent time in any hospital knows how hard nurses work and the high quality of care that they provide. Congress needs to support nurses, just as they support our loved ones and us when we need it the most. The Nurse Reinvestment Act is that first step to achieve these goals. This bill would establish nurse scholarships in exchange for requiring those nurses to serve facilities with critical shortages. It would provide resources to schools of nursing to train nurses of all levels to care for an older population. The Nursing Reinvestment Act would also provide incentives and grant programs to ensure that nurses stay in the profession and have opportunities to move up the career ladder. It establishes public service announcements to change age-old stereotypes about the nursing profession and improve recruiting. I am proud that nurses have been the driving force behind this bill. Together, they played a large role in developing the legislation and fighting for its passage. They were out on the front lines. They know better than anyone the challenges that nurses face day in and day out, and their experience and ideas informed this bipartisan effort and built a strong piece of legislation. Again, I would like to thank my colleague, Mrs. Capps, for all of her hard work on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that we may meet this urgent need as soon as possible.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last week the Committee on Appropriations adopted a bipartisan amendment that I offered along with my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), to prohibit corporate expatriates from winning Federal Government contracts. This rule wrongly strikes the amendment from this legislation. These are corporations that set up an operation overseas in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes. They enjoy all of the benefits of corporate citizenship in America. They look like U.S. companies. The principal market that their stock is traded on is in the United States. Their physical assets are protected by our police, our firemen, our Armed Forces. They just refuse to pay for the benefits as every other American citizen and company does. My own State of Connecticut witnessed this firsthand when Stanley Works tried to incorporate itself in Bermuda. They go to Bermuda, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Switzerland and Luxembourg. Companies who put profit before patriotism, they continue to enjoy one more benefit. They still win hefty Federal contracts. Corporate expatriates benefit from over $2 billion in lucrative government contracts. That is $2 billion of taxpayer money going to companies who avoid taxes here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. The government should not be doing business with those who want all of the benefits of citizenship without any of the responsibilities that come along with it. Congress must not allow these companies to leave individual Americans stuck with the tax bill while they put profits over patriotism. All we are saying is pay American taxes on American profits. The President has told us that we are at a wartime footing, and we are: $45 billion for defense; $38 billion we want to spend for homeland security. And when these companies leave the United States, average American taxpayers have to pick up the bill. I urge my colleagues, stand up to these corporations who are unpatriotic. At a time in our lives when we are asking people to pull together to do what we need to do for America, they take their business offshore and will not pay the taxes that are owed to the American government. Oppose this rule. More importantly, it is about opposing these corporations who truly do not have the well-being of the American people at heart. When they are doing business and enjoying every single benefit, they should not have the benefit of Federal contracts.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter- Dicks amendment to provide increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. These agencies are charged with bringing the history, the beauty, the wisdom of our culture into the lives of all Americans--young and old, rich and poor, urban and rural. We in Congress have said that preserving our national heritage, and bringing the arts into the lives of more Americans, is a goal worthy of our support. For the past two years, we have made an important investment in the NEA's Challenge America program. This program focuses on arts education and enrichment, after-school arts programs for youth, access education and enrichment, after-school arts programs for youth, access to the arts for underserved communities, and community arts development initiatives. This initiative has helped strengthen America's communities and foster new relationships between communities, state and federal agencies, and national organizations. We make sure that these vital agencies have the resources they need to continue and expand the impact of the arts. Many years ago, I spent seven years as the chair of the Greater New Haven Arts Council back in Connecticut. I know first hand that the arts not only enrich lives, but contribute to the economic growth of the community. Federal investment in the arts is not the only means of support for this endeavor. Rather, our dollars--which represent only a small fraction of our annual budget--are used to leverage private funding and fuel what is really an arts industry. This industry creates jobs, increases travel and tourism, and generates thousands of dollars for a state's economy. In addition, the NEA is an important partner in bringing arts education to more American students. Arts education is critical in planting seeds of art appreciation and in cultivating the talent that may have yet to be discovered in these young minds. The Endowment, in partnership with state arts agencies, provides $37 million of annual support for Kindergarten through 12th grade arts education projects in more than 2,600 communities across the country. It also funds professional development programs for art specialists, classroom teachers, and artists. Recent studies have shown that the arts have real value in restoring civility to our society and providing our children and communities real alternatives. Participation in arts programs helps children learn to express anger appropriately and enhance communication skills with adults and peers. Students who have benefitted from arts programs have also shown better self-esteem, an improved ability to finish tasks, less delinquent behavior, and a more positive attitude toward school. We must continue to support this effort to bring the arts and humanities into the lives of our young people. We know that the arts build our economy, enrich our culture, and feed the minds of adults and children alike. The NEA and NEH need this increase to fulfill their missions, and it's time we gave them this support. Vote for this amendment. Preserve our heritage and make it accessible to all.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Corporate scandals: Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Rite-Aid, Xerox. These are part of a much bigger problem. People in powerful positions acting irresponsibly, hurting investors and employees, jeopardizing people's pensions and retirement systems, and they are not being held accountable. In fact, they are being rewarded. It begs the question: How do we explain in this period that so many of our leading companies, like Stanley Works in New Britain, moves its corporate headquarters to the Bahamas to take advantage of a loophole in our tax laws? How do we explain to our children in these times that a WorldCom can create phony profitability along with CEOs' salaries rising which costs in an instant 17,000 jobs? How do we explain the executives of Enron who cash out for billions leaving their employees with worthless pensions? What values did these high executives bring to work every day? These are the people who told us to run the government like a business. Democrats support legislation that would require honest accounting, independent investment advice, sensible regulation, and criminal penalties for those guilty of corporate wrongdoing. We can have economic growth without corporate crime. That was not the legislation that was passed in this House by this Republican majority. Support the Sarbanes legislation in the Senate.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, for one hundred years Gaylord Hospital of Wallingford has provided care and comfort to those most in need. It is an honor for me to rise today to congratulate the Gaylord community, both past and present, on this very special occasion. As we celebrate its history it is easy to see what has made Gaylord such a success--the spirit of compassion and generosity which is at its core. At the turn of the 20th century, Connecticut faced a tuberculosis epidemic and was lacking a facility which specialized in the care and treatment of this devastating disease. Recognizing this rapidly increasing problem, the New Haven County Anti-Tuberculosis Association, which later became the Gaylord Farm Association, negotiated the purchase of the Gaylord Farm. This association, one of the first organized in the United States, quickly began to fulfill their mission to ``establish a non-profit sanatorium and hospital for the care and treatment of cases of pulmonary tuberculosis.'' Under the leadership of the renowned Dr. David Russell Lyman, who was the first director of the hospital and served in that capacity for a full fifty years, Gaylord Hospital flourished, becoming internationally recognized for its work. Dr. Lyman, who himself has been stricken with tuberculosis in his first years as a practitioner, had developed his own personal crusade against the ``great white plague'' and used his determination and commitment to make Gaylord a success. In its earliest days, Gaylord Farm Sanatorium, as it was first named, was run almost solely by Dr. Lyman and head nurse, Florence Rudolph Burgess. Though its full capacity was only twenty-two beds, this was quite an undertaking. Over the next fifty years the efforts of Dr. Lyman and Mrs. Burgess culminated in the expansion of the campus from two hundred thirty-nine acres to six hundred, from six buildings to fifty-five, from a staff of two to one hundred fifty, and an increased bed capacity from twenty-two to one hundred forty-four. Even more importantly, more than six thousand people, including American playwright Eugene O'Neill, sought and received the medical care they needed and were restored to health. In fact, my father, Ted DeLauro was a patient there from the summer of 1942 to the early spring of 1943. It is this legacy of care and dedication that continues to live within the walls of Gaylord Hospital today. With the discovery of medications that stemmed the progress of tuberculosis, Gaylord turned its expertise to other forms of rehabilitation. Today, Gaylord is the premier rehabilitation center in Connecticut, well-known throughout the region. Continuing in its expanded mission, this private not-for-profit facility is making a difference in the lives of many--providing patients with the physical and emotional care they need to achieve their rehabilitation goals. While we, as a nation, have been faced with numerous problems concerning our health care system, it is important to recognize that our medical facilities have not lost sight of their original mission. As they celebrate their centennial anniversary, I am proud to stand today to pay tribute to Gaylord Hospital for their invaluable contributions to our community and to the millions of people whose lives have been touched by their care, compassion and dedication.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this insurance industry, pharmaceutical written bill that does not drive down the cost of prescription drugs or cover most of America's seniors and is very harmful to women in this country, those tomorrow, and those who are in older generations.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on a matter of utmost importance for the transportation, economic, and environmental needs of our Nation, and the Northeast in particular, and that is the survival of Amtrak. For 31 years the Amtrak rail system has provided an essential service to millions of Americans, providing safe, reliable travel at an affordable price. It has sought to balance competing public service and commercial objectives, but has never been given adequate resources to deliver either objective fully. And now, without an immediate infusion of $200 million in emergency funds, an Amtrak shutdown could occur within days. This will cause serious disruptions for commuters and travelers everywhere. The fact is, funding for Amtrak is not simply an issue of transportation. It is an issue of economics, commerce, and livability. In my State of Connecticut, Amtrak's service is a vital component of daily life, as it is to thousands of cities and towns along the east coast. Over 1 million Connecticut citizens rely on Amtrak annually, 370,000 in my hometown of New Haven alone. So many people there rely on Amtrak to commute to work from New York City. Others rely on it to bring commerce and tourism into cities without commuter airline service. In the Northeast, people travel Amtrak because it is, quite simply, the most convenient and time-efficient method of traveling from city to city, alleviating the heavy rush-hour traffic faced by so many commuters today. In doing so, it is a major contributor to reducing emissions that contribute to respiratory illnesses like asthma. That helps us keep our air clean and our children healthy. Amtrak means jobs as well. They own and operate a rail yard in New Haven, Connecticut, where maintenance and equipment repair take place. One can only imagine how busy they are, given the continual underfunding of Amtrak. All in all, Amtrak employs nearly 700 employees in Connecticut alone. Since September 11, I might add, Americans are looking for alternatives to commercial airlines; and despite our best efforts to make our airline security the best in the world, many Americans still fear for their safety. Amtrak has proven that it is a viable transportation alternative. With so many concerns regarding air traffic congestion, from safety to overcrowded skies, it simply makes sense that we have in place an alternative mode of transportation that will alleviate the stress currently on our air traffic controllers and our airline security forces. The fact is, more choices means less risk to our people, less stress, healthier communities and, thus, a more livable region. For over 3 decades, funding for America's passenger railroad has nearly been enough to keep the system operating on a year-to-year basis, which prevents it from meeting its long-term public service mission, not to mention its capital obligations. The administration's budget for Amtrak requests $521 million for 2003, less than half of what Amtrak says it needs to meet its long-term and short- term financial needs. Sadly, this amount would only maintain the current level of funding and represents less than half of what Amtrak needs. The fact is that the Federal Government dedicates resources for highways, airlines, airports, runways for capital improvements. Despite the popular myth, Amtrak has no such luxury. Amtrak is expected to pay for capital and track improvements, new cars, repairs and maintenance. With only a fraction of the Federal subsidies for airlines and highways, Amtrak is expected to do a lot more with a lot less. Recently, I sent a letter, along with 161 of my colleagues, asking Congress to fully fund Amtrak at $1.9 billion. This funding includes $1.2 billion in Federal funding for capital and operating expenses, as well as $375 million for much-needed rail security projects across the system, and $400 million for life-safety improvements in Amtrak tunnels along the northeast corridor. We are asking for $200 million to be made available immediately. If we can move heaven and Earth in order to provide the airlines with $15 billion with very few strings attached, as we did last fall, surely we can find $200 million to keep Amtrak running when so many people rely on it. Failure to provide the necessary funds will not only mean the suspension of Amtrak service in the busy northeast corridor and the likely permanent loss of long-distance trains; it will mean that thousands of commuters around the Nation will be stranded; loss of production, loss of $1 million for communities and companies in areas where these areas need the services. It is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, Amtrak is too important to our communities to let die. It needs reforms. Let us do it in a realistic timetable that does not ignore the needs of millions of Americans. Congress and the administration must send a clear signal that they will not allow Amtrak to go bankrupt. Let us give them the $200 million that it needs.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii for her leadership and rise to speak on a subject important to women across America. Most people just think sports when they hear Title IX, but it is so much more than that. For 30 years, Title IX has opened the door of educational opportunity to women. But a recent study tells us that the door may be closing if we do not act soon. Before Title IX, schools at all levels limited participation of women and girls. What a different world it was then. Back then, many publicly funded universities did not admit women to undergraduate programs. They had higher admissions standards for women than men and imposed quotas based on gender. And that's not all. Women frequently were discouraged from applying to law and medical schools or majoring in hard sciences, such as physics or engineering. And when they did, equally qualified women regularly received less financial aid than their male counterparts, with married women generally receiving none at all. Honor societies were regularly reserved for male students only, and women's athletics were funded at levels far below programs for men. In fact, most female athletic programs consisted mainly of cheerleading, and few women were allowed to coach athletics or hold administrative positions in athletic departments. But when Title IX became law, that all began to change. It grew out of the women's civil rights movement of the late 1960's and early 70's. During that period when so much began to change, Congress started to focus attention on institutional barriers to women and girls, like education, largely because of how they affected women's employment opportunities. And there have been real results. In 1971, only 18 percent of young women completed four or more years of college. But by 2006, women are projected to earn 55 percent of all bachelor's degrees. In the legal and medical fields, there have been even greater advances. In 1999, women earned nearly half of all medical degrees, compared with 1972, when only 9 percent of medical school degrees went to women. Women accounted for 43 percent of all law school degrees in 1994, up from a meager 7 percent in 1972. And of all doctoral degrees awarded that year, 44 percent went to women. And in athletics, an area that has received significant attention in recent years, the gains have been palpable. Women now constitute 40 percent of college athletes, compared to the 15 percent thirty years ago. As evidenced by the trailblazing UConn Huskies women's basketball team and all of the accolades and championships they have earned, the values women learn from sports participation, like leadership, like teamwork, discipline, and pride in accomplishment are so very important. Today's athletic successes help us increase our participation in tomorrow's workforce, like the number of business management and ownership positions. In fact, 80 percent of female managers of Fortune 500 companies have a sports background. There is no question that participation in athletics has truly given women some of the tools they need for success. But this month, the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education--consisting of the American Association of University Women and 50 other organizations--released a report on the 30th anniversary of Title IX. And the news was not particularly good. The study included a report card examining the state of gender equity in 10 areas. Athletics, an area where we are supposedly making so many advances, received a C+. Career Education, a D. Employment and Learning Environment, a C-. Sexual Harassment and Standardized Testing were scarcely better, receiving C's. And technology, such an important area for our economy, received a D. And though all Federal agencies that fund education programs or activities are required to develop regulations to enforce Title IX, until recently only 4 agencies-Education, Energy, Agriculture and HHS-had done so. And there is a growing movement to roll back Title IX protections. Funding has been slashed for numerous programs that support gender equity in education. In 1996, Congress eliminated funding under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act that had for two decades supported Title IX and gender-equity services in 49 state education agencies. Attacks on gender equity have been growing, and women have been forced to turn to the legal system to get the rights they are guaranteed by the law. So, there is so much more work to do. We must support and enforce the strong compliance standards that are currently in place. And we must call on the Administration to take action to do just that. Title IX, gender equity and educational opportunity are simply too important to let fall by the wayside. We must remain vigilant. Protecting the rights of women is not simply the right thing to do, it is the essence of what we stand for as Americans. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Congresswoman Mink for her continued leadership on this important issue.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Jerry Woodall of Yale University in my hometown of New Haven, Connecticut. Dr. Woodall was recently honored with the National Medal of Technology in recognition of his outstanding work in semiconductor materials and devices. The National Medal of Technology was created to recognize those who embody the spirit of American innovation and have advanced the nation's global competitiveness. As one of only 120 individuals bestowed with this distinction, Dr. Woodall most-deservedly belongs among Connecticut's long legacy of innovators, like Eli Whitney and Igor Sikorsky. It is no overstatement to say that, in a remarkable career that has spanned four decades, Dr. Woodall has truly expanded America's horizons through his groundbreaking advances in electrical engineering and physics. Half of the entire world's annual sales of compound semiconductor components would simply not be possible without his legacy of research. Technology used in CD players, TV remote controls, computer networks, cell phones, and satellites can be credited to Dr. Woodall as well as advances in the use of lasers and ultra-fast transistors and solar cells. What's more, Dr. Woodall's work will provide the basis for technological innovations for decades to come. Few can claim such a legacy. Dr. Woodall's dedication and commitment to excellence have made a real difference in the quality of life of all Americans. I am honored to rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Jerry Woodall and to join with our nation in congratulating him as he is honored as a 2001 Medal of Technology laureate.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, It gives me great pleasure to rise today to join the Marymount College family in congratulating Dr. Ellen Campbell as she is honored with their Lifetime Achievement Award. An outstanding educator, dedicated colleague, and dear friend, this award is a reflection of her many contributions both professionally and personally. This year marks her fiftieth reunion year as an alumna and you will find many who remember Dr. Campbell in at least one of the many roles she assumed at Marymount. Whether at the Tarrytown campus or in London with the Study Abroad program, Dr. Campbell touched the lives of thousands of Marymount students. An alumna myself, I have many fond memories of Dr. Campbell when I was studying in London. An educator and administrator, Dr. Campbell willingly dedicated her time and energy to ensure that her students obtained the knowledge and skills they needed to succeed in their adult lives. A professor of English, Academic Dean and Coordinator of the London Study Abroad program, Dr. Campbell was the driving force behind many of Marymount's successful programs. In England, she dedicated much of her time to establishing the college's connections with the University of London and developing the drama program in cooperation with the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. Upon her return to the States, she involved herself with the programs for working adults, quickly becoming a strong and vocal advocate for their causes. After leaving Marymount, Dr. Campbell assumed a position with Woodbury University in Burbank, California. Realizing that adults wanting to return to college needed some flexibility, her time in California was spent coordinating and establishing Weekend Colleges at Woodbury University and Mount Saint Mary's College. Her efforts, in New York and California have allowed thousands of working adults to obtain degrees in higher education. Even retirement has not stopped Dr. Campbell's seemingly tireless energy. She has continued as a consultant for Woodbury University, has been active in arranging study/travel programs for schools and colleges, and frequently teaches short courses in the Weekend College at Mount St. Mary's College. An active member of the Beaumont Public Library, she used her background in education to the community's benefit by establishing a literacy program. She is a tremendous asset to her community and for those of us who have known her--whether professionally or personally--we consider ourselves fortunate indeed. I am deeply honored to rise today and join the friends, alumni, faculty and administration of Marymount College in extending my sincere thanks and appreciation to Dr. Ellen Campbell for her unparalleled commitment and dedication--past, present and future--as she is awarded this year's Lifetime Achievement Award. What an indelible mark she has left on us all.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding member of our community, Peter C. Young, as family, friends, and colleagues gather to celebrate his retirement after a thirty-five year career in education. Peter has been the Executive Director of Area Cooperative Education Services for over three decades. His commitment and hard work has brought a number of important programs and services to the twenty-six school districts located in South Central Connecticut. ACES is one of six educational service centers that were formed under Connecticut State Statute in 1970. A result of recognizing that school districts must work together to meet the ever-changing needs of local education systems, these centers provide an environment where quality programs can be planned, developed and implemented--giving our young people access to the best educational opportunities possible. In addition to his leadership of ACES, he has also implemented programs to benefit local school district teachers and administrators. Education is the cornerstone of success and the most critical link between our young people and their future. Throughout our country, we look to our towns and cities to provide these invaluable skills to our children. Throughout his professional life, Peter has embraced this responsibility and diligently worked to ensure that our school districts have had the resources to succeed. Working closely with the ACES Governing Board, made up of representatives from each of the member school districts, Peter's unparalleled leadership has benefitted our most precious resource--our children. Peter's work extends far beyond his career with ACES. His work with a myriad of local, state, and national organizations and associations has and continues to enrich the lives of many. As a member of the Branford Interfaith Housing Cooperation Board, the Connecticut Hospital Association, and the Association of Educational Service Agencies--just to name a few--Peter has used his talents in a variety of areas to make a real difference in the lives of others. His generosity, compassion and commitment is reflected in the many awards and commendations he has received. We have been fortunate to have such an individual working so diligently on our behalf. Through his many contributions both personally and professionally, Peter has touched the lives of thousands. It is my great honor to join his wife, Judith; daughters, Elizabeth and Kristin; family friends, and colleagues in extending my sincere congratulations and very best wishes to Peter Young as he celebrates his retirement.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, if things had gone as planned, we might have passed this bill yesterday, passed it overwhelmingly, because we were united in doing what is right for this country. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I was proud of the way we worked together. Members on both sides of the aisle crafted a responsible bill addressing the very real emergency needs of this Nation as we fight a war on terrorism. It includes critical funding for the Pentagon, for airline security, for the economic recovery of New York. It funds our war on terrorism. Unfortunately, the bipartisan accomplishment was shattered by the Republican leadership's insistence on a back-door increase in the amount of the debt our Nation can run up. And my colleague who just spoke from the other side of the aisle said it does not say $750 billion in there. That is because they do not want to say it, $750 billion. They do not want to talk about it. My colleagues do not want to talk about what they are doing. They are doing it as something to hide from the American people. Because of the massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and those are the pockets that that tax cut went into, not into the pockets of middle- class families in this country, the massive tax cuts for the wealthy that the Republicans passed last spring, we are operating again on borrowed money. Increasing our spending limit effectively pays for those tax cuts by raiding the Social Security trust fund. That is where the borrowed money comes from. Further, this gives Republicans a license to continue to do this for years to come. Put simply, it is like raising the limit on our national credit card and paying for it out of Social Security. Make no mistake, this maneuver has nothing to do with financing our war on terrorism, protecting our Nation, or economic downturn. Only $800 billion of the $2.7 trillion increase in our national debt projected by the administration itself is related to any of those needs. Where does the $2 trillion of debt come from? That is right, it comes from the Republican tax cut, pure and simple. That is why the administration had been seeking this increase well before September 11, and that is why Republicans refuse to allow a simple up-or-down vote on the issue. They do not want to face the consequences of their tax cut. This is a raid, pure and simple, on the Social Security trust fund to pay for a fiscally irresponsible plan. Increasing the Nation's spending limit raises interest rates; it amounts to a tax increase on all Americans. It will place the burden on our children for years to come. You know, this bill is supposed to be about supporting the war effort. It should be about giving our country the tools it needs to defeat terrorism in every corner of the globe. And it is appropriate that we consider this bill on the eve of the holiday during which we honor those who have fought for our country. We have heard a lot about patriotism on the floor of the House today and impugning people on this side of the aisle and their patriotism. Let me remind the prior speaker and the majority leader and the whip of the Republican Party that on rollcall vote number 103, April 28, 1999, at 8:18 p.m., we had a vote on the floor of this House authorizing the President of the United States to conduct military air operations and missile strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. That was Serbia and Montenegro. Our planes were in the air, my colleagues, and the people who voted against those troops that night included the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt). 193 Democrats voted to protect our troops and 192 Republicans voted not to protect our troops. Let us talk about patriotism and put patriotism where it belongs. Everyone in this Chamber knows that without the extras loaded into this bill, virtually all of us would have supported this bill to help us to win the war on terrorism. I urge the Republican leadership to bring before this House a bill that does not tamper with Social Security. It is a sacred trust between generations. I have an 89-year-old mother, I have kids who I hope will be working for my Social Security the way I worked for my mother's Social Security. That is what it is about. It is about our values as Americans. It supports our belief that a lifetime of work should guarantee a safe, a secure, and a healthy and dignified retirement. It has nothing to do with this legislation which is about supporting our troops and winning the war on terrorism. It is time for House Republicans to be straightforward with the American people. The American people are going to hold my Republican colleagues accountable; and it is they, the American people, who will have the final say.