Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join the Immanuel Baptist Church and the New Haven community in paying tribute to my dear friend and an outstanding member of the New Haven, CT, community--Rev. Curtis Cofield. As a pastor and community leader, Reverend Cofield has dedicated his life to making a real difference in the lives of the residents of Greater New Haven. The clergy has always played a vital role in our community and Reverend Cofield is a sterling example. His commitment to the service of our community through religious leadership is admired by many and rivaled by few. His involvement, not only with the congregation of the Immanuel Baptist Church, but with the entire community, has had a tremendous impact on many lives, especially those who face arduous struggles and frustrating situations in their daily lives. Working with his wife Elsie and the AIDS Interfaith Network, Reverend Cofield has helped hundreds of individuals and their families cope with the devastating effects caused by this terrible illness. For years, he has ministered to the spiritual needs of countless people in the New Haven community--strengthening the bonds of faith and helping to build stronger neighborhoods of which we can all be proud. Throughout his decades of service to the New Haven community, Reverend Cofield has been a leading advocate for some of our country's most vulnerable citizens. He has served as a strong voice for their best interests. As a member of over 30 service and religious organizations throughout his career, he has demonstrated a remarkable commitment to ensuring that his actions and participation enriched his community. I have always held a deep admiration for community service and those who provide it. With his extraordinary record of service, Reverend Cofield serves as an example to all that one person really can make a difference. As the first African-American chairman of the Connecticut State Freedom of Information Commission, organizing founder of the Dwight Neighborhood Corporation, and as a pastor at Immanuel Baptist Church, Reverend Cofield has enriched the lives of residents in New Haven and across the State of Connecticut. His dedication has been recognized locally, nationally, and internationally. The myriad awards and honors that adorn his walls are testimony to his unparalleled commitment and dedication. It is with great pride that I stand today to join Elsie, his children, family, friends, and the entire New Haven community to extend my deepest thanks and appreciation to Reverend Curtis Cofield for all of the good work he has done. As a pastor, community leader, and friend, he has touched the lives of thousands and leaves a legacy of dedication and inspiration second to none.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion offered by my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). The fact is that our economy has changed and education may have changed, but the connection between education and success and opportunity for the future has never changed. It is stronger now than ever. We need to provide our youngsters with that competitive advantage that my colleague just talked about, and we do that through education. Mr. Speaker, after years of waiting, we came to a bipartisan agreement, bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats agreed that we would deal with the needs of America's schools in the education spending bill. We did it. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), two leaders that I have a great deal of respect for, sat down in good faith. They hammered out a bipartisan bill. It would have made one of the greatest investments in public education in a generation. Congress would have passed that bill with bipartisan support and the President would have signed it. But let us take a look at what happened instead. I quote today's Washington Post: ``Fierce lobbying by powerful corporate groups with considerable sway among the GOP leadership helped kill a deal sealed with Republican negotiators early Monday, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. Business leaders have also bankrolled political ads over the issue that they disagreed on.'' That is what happened. We worked to get this agreement, the special interests weighed in with the Republican leadership, and they blew up the deal. Why? Because big business did not like a part of the bill that protects the health and safety of workers from crippling repetitive stress injuries. So big business said, ``Jump,'' and the Republican leadership said, ``How high?'' And jump they did. They scuttled the bipartisan agreement. They put the whole investment in education in serious jeopardy. The Republican leadership is telling America's schoolchildren, ``Wait, because the special interests must be served.'' That is wrong. It is wrong. It is unfair. It is an affront to the values of American families, who want their kids to be able to go to a first-class school.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu). Every parent wants to send their child to a public school with the best qualified teachers, high standards that challenge students, and that provides the kind of discipline that our youngsters need. That means an investment in teacher training, a commitment to turning around failing schools and helping schools with the cost of special education, helping school districts build and modernize 6,000 crumbling schools. But at the center of every quality school are high-quality teachers. There is a serious teacher shortage on the horizon. Class sizes are already exploding, making it more difficult for teachers to reach every student and to be able to inspire them. Studies clearly show that reducing class size makes a tremendous difference. By keeping class size down, classrooms can become again a place of learning, of discipline, where teachers can teach and children can learn. This is not about numbers. It is about an educational environment. We ought to be able to do that for America's families and for America's children. Despite what my colleagues say on the other side of the aisle, this issue is not settled and that is for one specific reason: the Republican leadership of this House went back on their word. They wrecked a bipartisan agreement that would have made this investment in schools. And they did it all because of an issue that was totally unrelated to education, but an issue that the special interests could not abide. So the Republican leadership faced the choice. They could side with public school children or they could side with the special interests. The choice that they made speaks volumes about their priorities and their values. They stood with the special interests. Let me quote the Washington Post today: ``Fierce lobbying by powerful corporate groups with considerable sway among the GOP leadership helped kill a deal sealed with Republican negotiators early Monday, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.'' They stood with the special interests. That is why we are here today. That is why we are fighting to make this education investment happen. We cannot trust the Republican leadership to keep their word and invest in schools unless we keep their feet to the fire. We have got to speak up for America's public schools, to make sure that the voices of America's public schools and the children that rely on them are heard in this House. Ninety percent of our youngsters are in public schools today. We should not be here for the special interests, but because of America's children. Pass this motion. Let us do something positive for America's children and for America's families today. That is what our values dictate that we do in this body.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the sad fact is that the Republican leadership of this Congress refuses to protect American workers. They do not identify with America's workers, with their economic well-being, or with their health concerns. They have been opposed to raising the minimum wage, and they are opposed to sensible work safety standards. Twenty-four hours ago, we had a deal. This was the White House, Democrats, Republicans. They came to an agreement on the issue of worker safety standards and a variety of other issues, but then the Republican leadership ran the agreement by the United States Chamber of Commerce, who I might add, let me say what they are doing today, the Chamber of Commerce. They have shifted millions of dollars of funds to the pharmaceutical industries to keep us from bringing the cost of prescription drugs down with a television ad campaign. Do not take my word for it. You are seeing it every day on TV. They do not want to bring the costs of prescription drugs down. This is what the U.S. Chamber is doing. They ran the bill by these folks, and they are funding their campaigns so all bets were off. So we are back at square one. That is what is at issue here. Repetitive motion hazards are the biggest safety and health problem in the workforce today. They account for nearly a third of all serious job-related injuries. More than 600,000 workers suffered serious workplace injuries. Women workers are particularly affected. Women make up 46 percent of the overall workforce. Women accounted for 63 percent of all repetitive motion injuries. Seventy percent have reported carpal tunnel cases in 1997. These injuries are expensive. They cost our economy $15 billion to $20 billion a year in medical costs. We do not need any more studies. We do not need to delay. People deserve the same kind of protections as machinery. Good business practice shows us this makes no sense to overwork, overstress equipment, causing it to break down. We need to treat our workers the same way. But the issue is, the Republican leadership has hijacked patients' bill of rights, campaign finance reform, gun safety, minimum wage, now worker protections, because they do not support workers or want to protect them.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this debate is about holding HMOs accountable. It is about accountability. The Republican leadership does not wanted to hold HMOs accountable. They in fact would like to reward them for outrageous behavior. Evidence: The Patients' Bill of Rights, HMOs are making medical decisions all of the time. Some of those decisions go wrong. We have tried to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights in this body. The Republican leadership has held that up. All we are asking is if they make a medical decision that goes wrong, that they are held accountable. Let us take a look at this bill that we are talking about this evening. Medicare HMOs should stop breaking their promise to seniors. When a senior signs up with a Medicare+Choice plan, they should have the security of knowing they will not see their coverage reduced or dropped for at least 3 years. We should be able to protect our seniors from those Medicare HMOs that are pulling the rug out from under them. These were the folks that were supposed to provide seniors with more choices, with prescription drug coverage that seniors cannot get through traditional Medicare, but they are giving seniors no choice at all. Let me talk about my State of Connecticut. They have jettisoned 56,000 people. I went to Milford, Connecticut, to a senior center, to say to these people, do not get scared. You can go back to traditional Medicare. We came to allay your fears. A woman raised her hand and she says, Rosa, do not tell me not to be scared. I am scared. You have insurance. I do not have insurance. What am I going to do? That is what this is about, accountability, HMO accountability. Instead of protecting seniors, Republican Congress protects the Medicare HMOs. We should have passed a bill here last week that would have provided desperately needed funding to our Nation's hospitals, rural, urban, home health, hospice providers. They faced deep cuts in 1997. They need that kind of help from us. Instead, the Republican Congress turned this bill into an $11 billion early Christmas present to the Medicare HMOs, 40 percent of the money in the bill, even though they only serve 15 percent of the seniors. They did it without any single guarantee that the Medicare HMOs will not stop reducing benefits or dropping seniors' coverage altogether. Mr. Speaker, we should have learned something from the last time we increased the payment to Medicare HMOs. Last year we gave them an additional $1.4 billion. Let me tell you how they returned the favor; they dropped nearly 1 million seniors. That is why we are asking here for tonight for the HMOs to have some guarantee that they need to stay for 3 years. One more item. My Republican colleagues would go one step further. They would put the prescription drug benefit into the hands of HMOs; imagine, people who decided to cut the rug out from 1 million people. Mr. Speaker, this motion says if Congress is going to give $11 billion to Medicare HMOs, then Medicare HMOs should provide seniors with the coverage they promise. Keep faith with America's seniors and support the motion to instruct tonight.

Ms. DeLAURO

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to comment that it is interesting to note it was the Republicans first proposal, when they took charge here, to kill low-income energy assistance, the LIHEAP program. Yes, it is about LIHEAP today and people being warm in this country, particularly in those areas of the country where it is cold, like the Northeast. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time that remains?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the amount of time?

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we had a very cold winter this past winter, and not only people in my community, but people all across this country, seniors and working families, saw their budgets stretched to the limit, making choices between food and heat and rent and heat and other kinds of cruel choices that they should not have to make. Last winter, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, provided critical assistance to low-income families facing skyrocketing home heating oil prices. Eligible families were able to receive assistance and to defray high heating costs. LIHEAP has proven to be one of the most important safety nets that this government offers to low-income families. However, this program is chronically underfunded. Since 1995, there has been approximately a 35 percent drop in the number of households that receive LIHEAP assistance, due to a reduction in funding levels. Mr. Speaker, winter is just around the corner. These same groups are confronted again with high energy prices. Home heating oil prices are projected to rise an estimated 50 percent, and natural gas is expected to increase 40 percent. Winter bills are likely to increase $290 more than last winter, which was the warmest on record. When the average recipient is the poorest of the poor, those averaging a household income of less than $10,000 per year, these costs are unconscionable. Households are forced to pay high energy costs, will be forced to reduce those budgets again, for food, for medicine and other household necessities. Current funding levels will not sustain the large rise in energy costs. As a result, additional LIHEAP funds are needed to allow the program to purchase the same amount of home energy as was purchased last year. As elected officials, we do not have the ability to manipulate weather projections to prevent a harsh winter, though we kind of think we can do whatever we would like to do. We are in a position, however, where we can use the offices that we have to increase funding for a proven program that will provide one of the most basic needs. The President did the right thing a month ago by releasing $400 million in emergency LIHEAP funds. I urge my colleagues to do the same: fund LIHEAP at an adequate level to make sure that those vulnerable groups have the means to keep themselves warm this winter and next; funded at the level of $550 million and also, that we forward-fund for $1.6 billion for the year 2002. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman; and I might just add that that while, in fact, the President did put in $1.1 billion, there are a number of us who also spoke not only with the majority party here, but also with the President about increasing those dollars, because of the fact that, particularly those of us who in the Northeast and some other places where we have extremely cold winters, that, in fact, what we needed to do was to see those numbers increased. The other reason why we have moved in this direction is because, in fact, over the years, this program has been dreadfully undercut in terms of costs, and there has also been the reluctance to forward-fund to the following year, which is critically important in order for us to move forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Ms. DeLAURO. So that it is not the $1.65 billion that would bring it up to the same level we are talking about?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute and 15 seconds for a question for the chairman. Mr. Speaker, in the gentleman's remarks, did he say included in the appropriations bill, which I understand we have not come to a vote on that bill yet, but that there was the $1.65 billion in forward-funding for the year 2002?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer the motion to instruct that I presented yesterday pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we are asking for 2001, and as I understand it, the gentleman said it was $1.7 billion for the year 2001. That must have been something that just happened, because it was not at that level earlier. But I am talking about the year 2002 in forward-funding, it is $1.4 billion.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said $1.4 billion?

Ms. DeLAURO. Well, we are asking for $1.6 billion. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) who was speaking, it might be interesting to note that just last year voted to abolish Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Someone who was concerned about our national security ought to be concerned about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that one of the things that often does not come out in these debates is when people just make flat-out statements about energy policy in this country. The fact of the matter is, in 1995, the Republican majority in this body cut the weatherization programs by about 50 percent. They continually underfund any kind of research and development into energy alternatives, biomass, wind, solar, et cetera; and then come out and talk about an energy policy. These are very, very big pieces of an energy policy, and which they have continuously, continuously undercut the President's request and other Members' request for these things. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I think this all sounds well and good, and it is very nice and a very nice speech. But let us take a look at the facts. Since the 1980s, there has been unprecedented attack on energy conservation programs by the United States Republican Party. Reagan-Bush repeatedly proposed to zero out energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. Quite frankly, it is their legacy, shortsighted energy policy that has put the gas pump prices as high as they are today. My colleagues refused to invest in energy independence. This year alone, Republicans cut renewable energy research $106 million below the President's request in the Energy and Water bill; it was $211 million in the President's request for energy research in the Interior bill. I mentioned before 50 percent cut in the important weatherization assistance programs. Not too long ago, 35 Republicans last year, including the major leaders of their party, wanted to cut and abolish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I might add that this was one of the first Republican proposals on energy policy when they took the majority was to kill the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Programs, the same families that are trying to pay for their heating bills and their cooling bills which they talk about today. They also wanted to count LIHEAP payments as income for the purposes of determining assistance on their food stamps. They have not been for an energy policy. They have not been for the LIHEAP program. So the speeches sound nice, but the facts are there. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I quickly would like to say to my colleague who just spoke that I too share the gentleman's pain about what is happening to women with breast cancer or cervical cancer, being a cancer survivor. But I have a bill in this body, the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act. This is a bipartisan bill, with 220 cosponsors, providing women with 48 hours of coverage in the hospital for a mastectomy, 24 hours for a lumpectomy, or a shorter time if doctor and patient decide that that should be the case. The House leadership, the Republican leadership of this body, would not bring this bill to the floor. Let us not talk about caring about women in this institution.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, It is with great pleasure that I today join the congregation of the First Baptist Church in Milford, Connecticut as they pay tribute to an outstanding member of the Milford community and my dear friend--Reverend Carleton Giles. Throughout this past month, which the First Baptist Church has designated as ``Pastor's Anniversary Month,'' the congregation and Milford residents have gathered on several occasions to honor Reverend Giles' tenth anniversary as their pastor. For many years, Reverend Giles has been an outstanding leader in the Milford community. As a pastor, teacher and police officer, he was shown unparalled commitment and dedication to all members of the community. With his extensive record of service, Reverend Giles has led an impressive and unqiue career--one which has made a real difference in the lives of many. The clergy has always played a vital role in our community and Reverend Giles is a sterling example. His commitment to the service of our community through religious leadership that has brought him to this day is admired by many and rivaled by few. His involvement, not only with the congregation of the First Baptist Church, but with the entire community, has produced a legacy that will last for years. For ten years, Reverend Giles has ministered to the spiritual needs of hundreds in the Milford community--strengthening our bonds of faith and helping to build stronger neighborhoods of which we can all be proud. In addition to his duties at the First Baptist Church, Reverend Giles has served as a law enforcement officer for the City of Norwalk for the past twenty years. Responsible for the implementation of drug and gang prevention programs such as D.A.R.E. and G.R.E.A.T, Reverend Giles has had a profound impact on Norwalk's young people. Because of his good work, our children are learning the dangers of drugs, gangs, and youth violence. Reverend Giles' efforts have gone a long way in opening the doors of communication between students and local law enforcement officials, a crucial link in the fight to end youth violence. Even with the incredible responsibilities Reverend Giles takes on in his professional career, he has still found time to serve on several community organizations, including the Interdenominational Ministers Alliance of Greater Bridgeport and Vicinity, Milford's Board of Police Commissioners, and New Haven's Annual Yom Hashoah Community Observance in remembrance of the Holocaust. I have had the privilege of having him serve on my Military Advisory Committee where he has taken the time to interview students from around the Third Congressional District who are interested in attending our nation's military academies. I am proud to stand today and join Reverend Giles' wife, Stephany, family, friends, and the First Baptist Church of Milford in extending my sincere thanks and appreciation for his outstanding leadership and invaluable contributions to our community. My sincere congratulations, Reverend Giles, on your tenth anniversary and best wishes for continued success.