Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today we have a historic opportunity to enact meaningful campaign finance reform. The Senate completed its work and passed a bill. The bipartisan Shays-Meehan measure has been twice passed by this House in previous Congresses. We are on the threshold of bringing real reform to a system that is out of control and overrun by big-monied interest. Yet here we are debating the merits of a procedural rule that can only be characterized as guaranteed to fail. It does not allow the Shays-Meehan bill to be considered as a coherent whole. It is disingenuous and unfair. This rule allows for 22 amendments designed to eviscerate the Shays- Meehan legislation; designed to kill the bill. Until we can get a clean up or down vote, we might as well tack up a ``for sale'' sign on all of our office doors. We need to question the overall strategy behind this rule. If Shays- Meehan does not get defeated on the floor, then the opponents have paved the way for it to die in conference with the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support genuine reform; that they not be afraid of real action. Restore integrity to our political process, restore America's faith in its political process. Defeat this rule. Support a clean vote on campaign finance reform.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is time to pass meaningful campaign finance reform legislation. Let us take soft money out of politics, let us restore integrity to our political system. The bipartisan Shays-Meehan Campaign Reform Act has passed in this body twice before. We should finally move to make it law. Shays-Meehan bans soft money for national parties, it reins in campaign advertisements masquerading as issue advocacy, enhances disclosure of political expenditures, and provides the Federal Election Commission with the teeth it needs to enforce the law. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is determined to drive a stake through the heart of all campaign finance reform. They have introduced a sham alternative that is intended to delay, distract, and to ultimately kill real reform. The bill will not clean up our campaign finance system but rather allow even more money to flow through it. Their bill would allow a wealthy couple to give $1.26 million in hard and soft money to a national party in an election campaign, and it allows Federal candidates to raise unlimited amounts of soft money for State parties to spend on TV attack ads. Let us stand up for clean elections, let us stand up for good political discourse in this country, let us stand up for real campaign finance reform.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders- Crowley-Rohrabacher-DeLauro-Paul amendment to help American families and seniors get the necessary prescription drugs at affordable prices. With spending on prescription drugs by seniors and others up by 18 percent last year to nearly $21 billion, we need to do everything that we can to make them safe, effective, and affordable, make these drugs accessible to those who need them. One would think that this is a goal that we could rally around. But no, once again, we are being fought by the pharmaceutical industry. They oppose reimportation. That poses the question: What exactly are they for? They are against the Medicare prescription drug benefit for all seniors. They are opposed to the Allen bill that would allow for pharmacists to be able to purchase at a discounted rate, the pharmaceuticals that Germany, France, Britain, and others can purchase. They are against across-the-board price reductions. They never tell us what they are for. In fact, the only thing they seem to be for is extending their patents and seeing their profits increase. Last year, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies earned $26 billion in profits. They oppose this amendment because the bill might cut into its considerable profit margin. They are waging a massive million dollar campaign to protect their agenda across the board. Over the past five election cycles, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, the trade group for brand-name drug companies, gave nearly $360 million in political contributions, lobbying and advertising campaigns, to protect its legislative agenda. Mr. Chairman, there are opponents of this amendment who raise the safety issue. The fact is that reimportation is safe. It has worked for years in Europe. Twenty-five percent of drugs consumed in European countries are reimported. This legislation requires all imported drugs to be the exact same FDA-approved medications that are sold in the United States. Pharmaceutical labels must comply with FDA regulations. Last year, Dr. David Kessler, the former FDA Commissioner under Presidents Bush and Clinton, stated that U.S.-licensed pharmacists and wholesalers would be able to safely import quality prescription drugs. He believes the importation of prescription drugs can be done without causing a greater health risk to American consumers. Let me just say that GlaxoWellcome is a British company. They send drugs to the United States, and they are perfectly well approved.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for agreeing to this colloquy. I want to address the pressing need of adequate funding for the WIC program. At current funding levels, States may be unable to serve approximately 200,000 low-income mothers, infants and children. From my State of Connecticut alone, 1,300 people would not be served. We know that the WIC program currently serves about 47 percent of all infants born in the United States, and we know the WIC dollars are excellent investments. Every dollar spent on WIC yields more than $3 in savings to the government in reduced spending on programs such as Medicaid. WIC has contributed to better birth outcomes and reduction in childhood anemia, key indicators of the health of American children. The program provides mothers, infants, and children with nutritious supplemental food packages, nutrition education and counseling, and a gateway to pre- and post-natal health care. The program also reduces fetal deaths and infant mortality and reduces low birth-weight rates. I might just say we have an average participation rate for this fiscal year at about 7.2 million. That reflects the average participation for the first half of the year through March. That historically is the kind of participation that we have seen in the past. December and February are always the lowest participation months. Last year, average participation for the first half of the year was nearly 50,000 below average participation for the year as a whole. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, average WIC participation for the first 8 months of fiscal year 2001 was 80,000 higher than average participation for the first 6 months of the year. Mr. Chairman, I have a concern that when unemployment increases, as it is doing, so does the poverty rate. And we need to understand that the WIC participation cannot increase as unemployment rises if none of the families that are eligible for WIC as a result of increased unemployment enroll. I think if we are looking at the kinds of unemployment rates where there is the view that that unemployment rate is going to rise, then we are going to see an additional number of people who need to take advantage of the WIC program. We should do this now. State WIC programs make their decisions this fall about how to run their programs. As we move toward conference, and there are 302(b) reallocations, I would like to work with the chairman to address the potential funding shortage for the WIC program. If the administration's unemployment predictions come true, we will see that this very essential program will not have enough funds to serve all eligible women, infants and children.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides emergency funds to address the food safety crisis that faces our Nation today. Today more American are getting sick from the food that they eat. Outbreaks of food sickness are expected to go up by as much as 15 percent over the next 10 years. The outbreaks are reported across the spectrum: fish, eggs, beef and lettuce, to name a few. The statistics are staggering. Five thousand Americans die every year from food-borne illness, and 76 million get ill and 325 are hospitalized. Medical expenses and lost productivity cost us every year $5.6 billion and $9.4 billion respectively. Two days ago the Excel Corporation recalled 190,000 pounds of ground beef and pork because of possible contamination by deadly E. coli. Sara Lee pled guilty to selling tainted meat linked to a nationwide outbreak of listeriosis in 1998, and 15 people were killed. Grocery stores are afraid that their food is unsafe. Slaughterhouses are killing cattle before the animals are unconscious because there are not enough inspectors to ensure that the law is enforced. George Grob, Deputy Director and Inspector General of Health and Human Services states that, and I quote, ``Any reasonable person would worry about it. If the inspection process worked really well, there would be fewer recalls.'' To address the problem I asked the committee to allow an amendment that would provide a total of $213 million in emergency funds, $90 million for more inspections of imported foods, $73 million for additional inspections of domestic food products, and $50 million for the Food Safety Inspection Service to ensure that it has the resources that it needs to implement food safety procedures and regulations. The Food and Drug Administration inspects all food except meat, poultry and eggs. This food, which includes fruit juices, vegetables, cheeses, seafood, is the source of 85 percent of food poisoning in this country. In the United States alone, there are 30,000 companies that produce these food items, and last year recalls of FDA-regulated products rose to 315, the most since the 1980s and 36 percent above average. Mr. Chairman, FDA inspects less than 1 percent of imported food, and that market has expanded from 2.7 million items to 4.1 million items in just 3 years. In the domestic market, the FDA does not inspect all high-risk firms more than once a year; other firms are visited only once in 7 years. The FDA employs 400 people to inspect domestic food and recall. There are 30,000 food plants to look into and less than 120 people to inspect imported food. According to their own testimony, the FDA says to conduct annual inspections of every domestic food firm, it would need 3,400 employees. To increase its inspection of imported food from 1 percent to 10 percent would require 1,600 employees. The FDA needs resources in order to begin to meet its goal, and that is what this amendment does, is to begin the process of increasing the number of inspectors in order to look at imported foods and take the 1 percent of the inspections to 10 percent, and it would add 630 inspectors to guarantee that all high-risk firms are inspected twice a year, all other firms every 2 years, and all food warehouses every 3 years. The last part of the amendment says, let us have $50 million for the Food Safety Inspection Service to allow it to reach its goal of looking at reducing food-borne illnesses that are carried by meat and poultry by 25 percent. The FSIS has held public hearings to look at how we deal with imported food and procedures, risk management, and emergency outbreaks. We only have to look at our European friends to see what they have gone through with foot and mouth and with mad cow illness to understand that what we need to do is to be able to meet any kind of emergency. We need to move forward on food safety, not backwards. If we continue to not provide the kinds of inspection services that are needed, in fact, we will move backwards and jeopardize the health of this country. Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of this amendment and to provide emergency assistance for food safety. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is simply an effort to try to build the infrastructure of the agencies that we charge with protecting our food, our food supply, which is ultimately about the food, but it is about the safety of every man, women and child in this country. That is all that we are asking about here. Given the statistics, which are staggering, 5,000 deaths, 73 million people ill, 325,000 people hospitalized, it is unconscionable that we do not recognize this as a crisis and as an emergency. We cannot allow this to continue. We can do something about it. Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue to move forward with my amendment. Point of Order

Ms. DeLAURO. No, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the committee. I thank them for their leadership. Given the kind of budget constraints that we have, there was a lot of hard work and a good bill that has been produced, though there are a few critical issues that remain that we need to continue to work on. I also want to say thank you to this subcommittee and the associate staff for all of their help. The bill addresses many of the urgent needs of American families. Let me just take a moment to focus on the crisis in agriculture today. America's economy and security relies on the strength of agriculture. Yet America's farmers are facing the toughest times since the Great Depression. Connecticut is a leader in New England's agriculture, in eggs, peaches, milk production per cow. The Nation's oldest agriculture experiment station is just up the street from my home in New Haven. Like other farmers, Connecticut farmers face plunging commodity prices and soaring gas prices. Urban sprawl puts it in the top 10 States in lost farmland. This spring, record low temperatures eliminated almost 40 percent of our peach, pear, grape and apple crops. I am proud of the funding for programs that reach out and help our farmers: rural development, conservation, pest management, commodity marketing assistance. This bill also funds food safety efforts, but in my view, as I have expressed before in the House today, does not go far enough. It needs to do more. Americans are more likely to get sick from what they eat today than they were a half century ago, and outbreaks of food sickness are expected to go up by more than 15 percent over the next decade. Each year 5,000 Americans die from food-borne illnesses, 76 million get ill, and 325,000 are hospitalized. Just 2 days ago, the Excel Corporation recalled 190,000 pounds of ground beef and pork because of possible contamination by deadly E. coli. The Food and Drug Administration inspects all food except meat, poultry and eggs. Yet to cover the 30,000 U.S. companies that make this food, the FDA has only 400 inspectors. For the 4.1 million imported food items entering the country, the FDA has less than 120 inspectors. To address this crisis facing the families, I will offer an amendment to increase the funds for inspections and other food safety initiatives. As we move toward the conference, I also would like to work with the chairman to address the funding shortage that threatens WIC. If the administration's unemployment predictions come true, this essential nutrition program for low-income families, which yields more than $3 in savings to the government in reduced spending on programs such as Medicaid, will, in fact, not have enough funds to serve all who are eligible, all eligible women, infants and children. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to address these important issues and others as we debate the bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. It busts the budget caps. There has been a double standard applied to some programs within this bill, and I was fully supportive of the assistance to apple growers in this country, because I think it is the right thing to do to help an industry out when they need that help. On the other hand, what they have done here with the Committee on Rules is they have made an exception for one emergency and have said no to all other emergencies that face American families. Whether it is family farmers facing the loss of their family farms, whether it is biodiesel fuels, Meals on Wheels, low-income nutrition assistance, we have emergencies that we need to address. We just cannot pick and choose which ones we want and which ones are politically advantageous. Specifically, this rule blocks an amendment that I brought to the committee to provide urgent emergency funds to address the food safety crisis. Americans are more likely to get sick from what they eat today than they were a half century ago, and the outbreak of food sickness is expected to go up by as much as 15 percent over the next decade. Each year, some of my colleagues have mentioned this already, 5,000 Americans die from food-borne illnesses, 76 million get ill and 325,000 are hospitalized. Just 2 days ago, the Excel Corporation recalled 190,000 pounds of ground beef and pork because of the possible contamination by deadly E. Coli in Kentucky, in Tennessee, in Georgia. Sara Lee pled guilty to selling tainted meat that was linked to a nationwide listeriosis in 1998 that killed 15 people. Grocery stores are afraid that their fruit is unsafe to sell. Lest one thinks that these are things that I just made up, we have a number of headlines from recent news: A Big Recall of Meat Amid E. Coli Fears; Sara Lee Fined in Meat Recall Linked to 15 Deaths; USDA Blamed in Slaughter Violations; Grocers Demand Produce Inspections; Contaminated Food Makes Millions Ill Despite Advances. Experts like Joe Levitt from the FDA are telling the press that, quote, we do have a real problem. To address this problem, I asked the committee to allow an amendment to provide $213 million in emergency funds, $90 million to increase inspection of imported foods from 1 to 10 percent, $73 million for over 600 new inspectors to inspect all high-risk and domestic firms twice a year and all other domestic firms every 2 years, and $50 million for the food safety and inspection service to ensure the implementation of new food safety procedures to strengthen our food safety efforts. The Food and Drug Administration inspects all food except meat, poultry, and eggs. They inspect fruit juices, vegetables, cheeses, and seafood. These foods are the sources of 85 percent of food poisoning; and last year, recalls of FDA-regulated products rose to 315, the most since the mid-1980s, and 36 percent above the average. FDA inspects less than 1 percent of imported food that comes into the United States, and this is a market that has expanded from 2.7 million items coming in to our country to 4.1 million items, and that increase has happened in just the last 3 years. In the domestic market, the FDA inspects high risk firms no more than once a year and other firms are inspected only once in 7 years. The FDA has only 400 people to inspect all domestic food, and we have 30,000 domestic food producers and food plants in the United States. They have less than 120 people to inspect imported food. Food Safety and Inspection Service has held public hearings on a wide range of issues: procedures for imported food, risk management, emergency outbreaks. We know what has happened in Europe with foot and mouth. We know about the threat of mad cow. It is vital that the FSIS has the resources it needs. American families should be able to go out to dinner, to buy food, and not be fearful that they or their children or their families are going to be in jeopardy. In the 1920s, Upton Sinclair wrote in a novel, The Jungle, he highlighted the abuses of the meat packaging industry. It brought a wave of reform in this country. We need to move forward on food safety, not to move backward to the days that Sinclair wrote about. This is about providing the agency that was responsible for protecting our food supply, give them the resources to have the inspectors that they need in order that Americans will be safe. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, Americans need a Patients' Bill of Rights. Every single day we hear stories of patients whose health has been seriously jeopardized because their health plan has denied coverage. Each day 35,000 patients experience a delay in needed care and 7,000 patients per day are denied referral to a medical specialist. Doctors are unable to make the best medical decisions for their patients because their hands are tied by the insurance companies. What we need to do is to return those medical decisions back to doctors and patients and out of the hands of insurance companies. We need a Patients' Bill of Rights that grants access to specialists, allows patients to choose their own doctors, lifts physician gags that prohibit doctors from talking about medical options, allows for access to emergency rooms, and, yes, holds HMOs accountable for negligent actions. These patient protections are long overdue. The Republican leadership has watered down meaningful bipartisan legislation to protect another special interest, the managed care organizations. They want to give HMOs special protection from lawsuits, while weakening patients' ability to hold health plans accountable. Vote for Dingell-Norwood. Support the bipartisan Patient Protection Act. In the long run, it will help the American people.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to extend my deep congratulations and best wishes to the members and friends of the Yale Alumni Chorus as they gather to begin their Tercentenary Tour celebrating the 300th Anniversary of the founding of Yale University and the 140th anniversary of the founding of the Yale Glee Club. Today marks the beginning of their journey to Russia, Wales, and England where they will continue in their mission as ``ambassadors of song,'' promoting international goodwill and choral singing at its finest. The world-renowned Yale Glee Club was first established 140 years ago and has traveled extensively throughout the United States, Europe, Latin America and Asia. The Yale Alumni Chorus was established by the Yale Glee Club Associates, an alumni association founded by Prescott S. Bush, father of former President George Herbert W. Bush and grandfather to President George W. Bush. Created only four years ago, this group enables the loyal alumni of the Yale Glee Club to carry on its legacy of harmony, friendship, and goodwill. Their inaugural tour of China only three years ago included performances with the principal orchestras of Beijing, Xi'an, and Shanghai and earned them a first- prize award at the China International Chorus Festival. This Tercentenary Tour will bring the over four hundred participants to Russia where they will perform at the White Nights Festival with the Mariinsky Orchestra and later with the Moscow Chamber Orchestra. The group will provide the opening concert for the International Eisteddfod Festival in Wales and will end their tour at St. Paul's Cathedral in London where they will sing with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra at a gala celebrating Yale University's 300th birthday. Throughout their tour, the group will be preforming classic American folk music as well as several works composed by Yale University Alumni. Perhaps the most moving and meaningful however, will be the group's performance in Wrexham, Wales where they will participate in a memorial tribute to Elihu Yale, the university's namesake. Comprised of three generations of Yale alumni representing sixty different graduating classes and hailing from thirty three states and six additional countries, they are a truly remarkable group. It is my honor and privilege to stand today and extend my best wishes to the Yale Alumni Chorus as they begin their Tercentenary Tour. With their passion for music and unquestionable dedication to their alma mater, I am confident that they will represent Yale University, the State of Connecticut, and the United States with dignity and integrity.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter- Dicks-Horn-Johnson amendment. We need to increase the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences. These are the agencies that 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 the Congress have said that preserving our national heritage and bringing the arts into the lives of more Americans is a goal that is worthy to support. Last year we made an important investment in the NEA's new Challenge America program. This program focuses on arts education and enrichment, after school arts programs for young people, access to the arts for underserved communities and community arts development initiatives. Many years ago I spent several years as chair of the Greater New Haven Arts Council in Connecticut, and I know firsthand that the arts not only enrich lives, but they contribute to the economic growth of our communities. The 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. The industry creates jobs, increases travel and tourism and generates thousands of dollars for a State's economy. Arts have a real value in restoring civility to our society, providing children and our communities with real alternatives. Participation in the arts programs helps children to learn to express anger appropriately and enhance their communication skills with adults and peers. Youngsters who have benefited from these programs show better self-esteem, an improved ability to finish their tasks, less delinquent behavior, and a more positive attitude towards school. We know that arts build our economy, enrich our culture, and feed the minds of adults and children alike. We need to increase the opportunity through these organizations, to help them to fulfill their missions, and it is time that we gave them this support. Vote for this amendment, preserve our heritage, make it accessible to all.

Ms. DeLAURO

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I might just say that the $300 million that was added in is the money that came from the disaster relief account, and we know that that money should not be taken out of the disaster relief account and that the $1.4 billion that is here in my amendment is what the President has requested. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci). (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide $600 million in emergency funding for this fiscal year for the Low-Income Heating Energy Assistance Program, the LIHEAP program, and $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2002 in advance funding for the LIHEAP program. Equally critical, it would restore $300 million to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund. The LIHEAP program is one of the most critical and successful components of our social safety net. The program provides essential heating and cooling assistance to almost 5 million low-income households, including the working poor, those who are making the transition from welfare to work, disabled persons, elderly and families with young children, the most vulnerable in our society. The price spikes with regard to costs of energy have a disproportionate effect on these vulnerable populations. They pay 20 percent of their income on energy bills, and that is about four times on average the amount paid by other people. These are folks who are making around $8,000 or less a year. Mr. Chairman, the $150 million requested by the President and the 300 million included in this bill are inadequate. They do not meet the needs of millions of working families and seniors who are facing unbelievable energy costs, no matter where you go in the United States. In addition, all of the LIHEAP funds appropriated for this fiscal year have been released and nearly half of the States have already exhausted or nearly exhausted their funding. Warm weather States facing the prospects of a hot summer will have little relief without immediate emergency LIHEAP funds. The amendment increases assistance to these families by providing this emergency appropriation. The funds are needed in order to address an immediate problem, an immediate relief for those States who are trying to deal with delinquent energy payments and then preparing for the effects of the summer. The amendment also provides $1.4 billion for LIHEAP for that appropriation for the year 2002, and we need to do this now so that there is no interruption of benefits for people who are suffering with the high prices. States need to have the advanced funding so that they can prevent the cuts in benefits, they can determine eligibility levels, and they can enter into contracts when the energy costs are low so that they do not have to pay more when the cold weather hits. Finally, the amendment would restore $300 million to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund. These were originally used to offset the $300 million the committee had set aside for LIHEAP assistance. As my colleagues have said earlier today, most of the South is dealing with the aftermath of Tropical Storm Allison. This storm has caused numerous fatalities and dumped 30 inches of rain in some areas as it has ripped its way from Texas to New England. Yesterday, FEMA director Joe Allbaugh stated that the costs are now going to exceed $4 billion. They originally talked about $2 billion. As my colleague from Texas pointed out, the Houston Chronicle this morning talked about $4.8 billion, and they are not sure where this number is finally going to land. This is not the time, not the time to take money away from FEMA; but it is the time when we ought to be strengthening what we are doing here. If we fail to act now, our most vulnerable population, people who are struggling every single day to pay the high cost of energy, making serious choices in what their lives are about in order to deal with energy costs, they are going to be confronted continually with these skyrocketing costs. We have an opportunity on an emergency basis to do something about it. We should act today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just say to my colleagues that this is the emergency supplemental bill. I do not think anyone could deny the whole issue of energy prices, whether someone is from the West Coast, in the middle of the country, or the East Coast; that there has been a severe crisis and an issue with regard to the escalating energy costs. The fact of the matter is that LIHEAP has proven to be a successful program but always a program that is underfunded, and it does affect the most vulnerable populations in this country. We know firsthand that almost half of the States of these United States are out of money or almost out of money. We have the hot summer months coming up. That we can stand here today and not utilize this vehicle, which is for emergency purposes, to bring some relief to people in this country, I find somewhat mind-boggling. On the issue of disaster relief, I am not from Texas, I am not from Houston, we got only a piece of what this tropical storm was all about, but I have heard from people on both sides of the aisle, I have been reading and watching the news broadcasts, and the folks in Texas are in trouble. They are in trouble. They keep doubling the costs of what this disaster is going to be. The mosquito problem has just risen, and we have agreed to pay a portion of that. Why do we want to knowingly take money from the program that we know we are going to have to appropriate to help people? Our job is to represent those folks who send us here, no matter where we are. This is the right thing to do.

Ms. DeLAURO. Just very, very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I say to the Chair of the committee that it is true this additional amount for LIHEAP for this emergency contingency fund is not authorized. However, last year Congress provided a $600 million emergency supplemental for LIHEAP that was also not authorized. If we can overlook the lack of authorization last year, I think when the need is greater this year we can overlook it, particularly because it is of an emergency nature. I also submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that there are several other provisions in this supplemental that are provisions that have not been authorized and yet they received waivers. I think we could waive the point of order on this issue which affects the American folks so deeply.

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

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because it blocks critical amendments which would have helped vulnerable Americans with soaring energy bills. My amendment would have provided $600 million this year for emergency low-income heating energy assistance, a funding increase of $300 million. It would have provided $1.4 billion in these emergency low-income energy assistance funds for next year. It would have restored $300 million to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA's, disaster relief fund. These funds are critical for Americans who are facing skyrocketing energy bills this summer and those communities that have been devastated by Tropical Storm Allison. Low-income energy funds appropriated for this year have all been released. We have 19 States that have exhausted all of their LIHEAP funds, or they soon will. This amendment would have provided immediate relief for those States that are trying to deal with delinquent energy payments and that are preparing for the scorching temperatures this summer. This past winter, 3.6 million families in nearly half of the United States risked having their energy cut off because of outrageous energy costs. It really is incredible and it is wrong. Further, the amendment would have provided advance funding for later this year, after September 30. There will be no Labor-HHS bill at that time. That means that people who are going to be struggling with energy costs into the winter are going to have to just suck it up because there will not be funding there until this body makes a decision to deal with low-income energy funds in the future. Finally, the amendment would have said to FEMA, we will restore $300 million of your resources to deal with Tropical Storm Allison. Today, the director of FEMA has said that it will take not the $2 billion that he thought but now $4 billion to deal with the cleanup and to deal with what is happening with mosquitoes following that storm. And what do we want to do at this juncture? Instead of making that money available for the folks in this Nation, we are rescinding the money, taking back $300 million, in fact, so that the people of this country, people in the South and who are suffering from what happened with Tropical Storm Allison are going to be on their own. I oppose this rule because it jeopardizes our most vulnerable populations. Vote it down.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to one of our Nation's oldest and finest medical institutions. Yale-New Haven Hospital. For one hundred and seventy five years, Yale-New Haven has been at the forefront of medical care. Chartered in 1826 as the General Hospital of Connecticut, it was the first hospital in the State of Connecticut and the fifth in the nation. Throughout its proud history, Yale-New Haven Hospital has enriched the lives of millions of patients and has become a true national landmark. Though we have come a long way from the days of horse-drawn ambulances and physicians carrying little black bags as they made house calls, Yale-New Haven has never lost sight of their original message: to serve those in need. Over the course of their 175 year history, Yale-New Haven has developed some of the most significant advances in medical research. Their remarkable work has not only made a difference in the New Haven community, but in the lives of millions across the globe. Yale-New Haven Hospital has long been known for its pioneering efforts in medical technology. They were the first hospital in the western hemisphere to use both penicillin and chemotherapy and the first in the nation to offer rooming-in and one of the first to offer natural child- birth. Other firsts have included the first artificial heart pump which is now housed in the Smithsonian Institute and the world's first intensive care unit for newborns. These contributions have changed the course of medical history and made possible the continued advancement of many medical technologies. More than their contributions to the medical science, Yale-New Haven Hospital has always had a very special relationship with the New Haven community, which I am sure it will work to continue. Their home since the beginning, Yale-New Haven continues to work hard to ensure the growth and development of the New Haven area. Partnering with New Haven schools, they initiated the Partners in Education Program which offers career exploration and volunteer service opportunities for students. In addition, each year the Partners in Education program provides five four-year scholarships to minority students furthering their education in health-related fields. Yale-New Haven also lends its support to a number of local and non-profit organizations. Their numerous contributions to such organizations as the Ronald McDonald House, Habitat for Humanity, the New Haven Public Education Fund, the New Haven Boys & Girls Club, and the Anti-Defamation League have gone a long way in helping them achieve their respective missions in the community. Yale-New Haven Hospital also offers the New Haven community access to a variety of life-saving tests for cancer. As a cancer survivor myself, I can tell you that these screenings are an invaluable tool in the fight against this devastating disease. The Yale-New Haven Mammography Van has been operating for over a year now, providing mammograms to several under served groups throughout the community. Yale-New Haven is also one of only sixteen sites in Connecticut that offers comprehensive breast and cervical cancer screening programs free of charge to eligible women over age forty. Their consistent commitment and dedication to ensuring service to those most in need has left an indelible mark on our community. For its invaluable contributions to medicine and to the New Haven community, I am proud to rise today to pay tribute to Yale-New Haven Hospital as they celebrate their 175th Anniversary. It is with sincere thanks and appreciation that I extend my congratulations and best wishes on this very special occasion.