Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of Southern Connecticut State University's Men's Soccer team. With two consecutive NCAA Division II Championships in 1998 and 1999, for a total of six over the past thirteen years, the young men who have participated in this program have met tremendous challenges with unparalleled dedication and hard work. Over the past decade, the athletic department at Southern Connecticut State University has dedicated itself to instilling a revitalized spirit and interest in the game of soccer. With his experience and true passion for the game, Armand Dikranian, founder and former head coach of Southern's soccer program, has led this effort. Under his leadership, the Owls won their first national championship in 1987. In his years at Southern, Mr. Dikranian has developed the soccer program into one of the nation's finest. Now serving as a consultant to the Owls' men's and women's squads and the Director of Intramural and Club Sports, he continues in his efforts to nurture and develop the natural talent of Southern's athletes. While it is important to recognize individual achievements, it is the team effort that makes these young people true winners. Current Head Coach Tom Lang as well as the assistant coaches and staff are all alumni of Southern's soccer program--teaching the current team members the same lessons that have led the Owls to success time and again: hard work and team work. Southern's 1999 Men's Soccer team, a combination of past and present, demonstrated a unique commitment, not only to themselves, but to each other. They are role models for us all. Collegiate sports provide invaluable lessons to our young people-- team work, discipline, comradery and commitment to excellence. These are skills that will serve them well as they begin to make a difference in the world. I am honored to rise today to extend my sincere congratulations to every member of Southern Connecticut State University's Men's Soccer Team as this year's NCAA Division II National Champions--an accomplishment for which they should all be very proud.

Mr. DeLAURO

Mr. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to honor an extraordinary individual whose contributions to the Italian- American community in my hometown of New Haven, Connecticut have been truly invaluable. A friend to all who know him, I am honored to pay tribute to my Uncle Gino as he celebrates his 90th birthday. The son of an Italian Supreme Court Judge, Gino grew up in Rome and came to the United States with his family shortly after the conclusion of World War II. Ambitious and hard working, Gino took on a variety of jobs throughout Greater New Haven, doing whatever necessary to support his wife, Nerina, and two children. Always committed to his Italian heritage, one of Gino's firsts jobs was delivering the news on the local Italian radio station. During his first years in New Haven, he found a friend and mentor in my father, Ted DeLauro to help guide him as he began a new life in America. Gino and his family formed a special bond with my family. My mother, Luisa, was especially close with her Aunt Nettie, whom she lived with until Nettie was fifteen years old. Gino's family would come to dinner every Thursday night and I can remember listening in wonder to his stories of Rome and Amalfi, New Haven's sister city. His gentle nature endeared him to all those fortunate to know him and I consider myself blessed to be in his family. After becoming a prominent figure in the Italian-American community of the Greater New Haven area, he began to use his many talents to assist Italian immigrants with immigration formalities, translations, and travel arrangements to the ``Old Country''. As a native of Italy and immigrant himself, Gino understood the fear and confusion of coming to a new country. He used his knowledge of his homeland and what he had learned here to support and comfort families that sought his assistance. Finding more and more of his time focused on these issues, he established the Balsamo Agency at the age of fifty-two and ran the company until his retirement at the tender age of eight-four. His compassion, warmth and unparalleled dedication to the Italian-American community helped thousands of Italians adapt to their new lives in America. Without his diligent efforts on their behalf, many would have found the daunting task of starting a new life a much more difficult experience. He made a real difference in the lives of many--a rare accomplishment. It is a pleasure for me to stand today to recognize Gino's lifetime of achievement. He has left an indelible mark on the New Haven community and words cannot begin to express the thanks and appreciation he deserves for all his kindness and good works. I am honored to join his wife of sixty-six years, Nettie, his children Dino and Fausta, family and friends in extending my best wishes to Gino as he celebrates his 90th birthday. Happy Birthday Uncle Gino!

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker: It is with great pride that I rise today to join the thousands gathered in New Haven, Connecticut to welcome the Amistad to its home port, commemorating the story of Sengbe Pieh and the Mendians kidnaped from what is now Sierra Leone, Africa. The Amistad replica will bring to life the legendary events of 1839 so that generations of children and adults will understand and share the slaves' courageous rebellion aboard ship, their difficult imprisonment, and their final vindication by the United States Supreme Court. At a time of great division in our society, many New Haven residents played a key role in aiding Sengbe Pieh and the Mendians in what became a two-year legal and political battle for their freedom. Pastor Simeon Jocelyn, Lewis Tappan, and the congregations of the United Church on the Green and Dixwell United Church of Christ established the Amistad Committee whose mission was to provide for the Mendians' basic needs. They gathered food and clothing, and arranged for students from the Yale Divinity School to teach the Mendians English so that they were able to communicate their story to their defenders. Roger Sherman Baldwin, a New Haven attorney who later enlisted the aid of former President John Quincy Adams, volunteered to defend the captives. Today, a statue of Sengbe Pieh stands proudly near the site where he and the other Mendians of the Amistad were first imprisoned. New Haven is proud of the role it played in this crucial moment in the ongoing struggle for human rights and racial harmony. We are honored to have the Amistad with us today. There are so many wonderful people that have committed themselves to this project--their hard work and dedication to this cause has made this day possible. My sincere thanks and appreciation to former Connecticut Governor Lowell Weicker, responsible for securing the initial state funding and support for the project; Al Marder and the Amistad Committee, which recreated the original committee that first came to the defense of the Amistad slaves; the Connecticut African American Historical Society, whose work with the Amistad Committee and Governor Weicker established Amistad America; Amistad America, a non- profit educational corporation that worked with Mystic Seaport to build the replica and will continue to operate the ship; and the students and faculty of the Sound School in New Haven, who crafted a lifeboat, named Margru after one of the four children aboard Amistad, that will now be carried on the Amistad replica. The participation and diligent efforts of all these groups and talented individuals have produced a tremendous contribution to the history of Connecticut and the United States. As we reflect on the 161 years of history that has passed since the original Amistad landed on our shores, it is important to remind ourselves that this continues to be an unfinished journey. In the United States, we tore our nation apart in violence before we put an end to the institution that brought Sengbe Pieh to these shores. In Sierra Leone, it would be more than a century after their native sons and daughters left their shores before they would be able to claim the right to truly govern themselves. Today, we watch as the United Nations and Sierra Leone's African neighbors help in its struggle for peace. If the history of the United States and Sierra Leone have taught us anything, it is that our journey towards peace, justice, and freedom has not yet ended. Whether at sea or in port, the Amistad will carry this message to all who will hear it. A reminder of an extraordinary moment in our history, I applaud the inspired dedication that the New Haven community has shown for this project. It is with great pleasure that I stand and add my voice to all of those who have gathered today to welcome the Amistad home.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my colleagues in this motion to strike the Global Gag Rule language that is contrary to the principles of democracy that we claim to advocate and that simply sweeps the women around the world under the political table. The family planning programs our country funds are doing critical work to provide reproductive health care for millions of women around the globe to help prevent unwanted pregnancies, and yes, help prevent abortions. These family planning programs are many times the only health care these women and their families have. They are also spreading the first seeds of democracy in countries that are struggling to care for their own people. But what this bill says to these international family planning groups is that in order to be a part of our system you must forfeit your right to determine what you will do with your own private funds. You must not talk about certain things. You must not perform certain health care services. You must report to us what you do with your own money. Mr. Chairman, this sounds to me shockingly similar to the undemocratic behavior we criticize in other countries. If we were to impose these mandates on U.S. groups they would be struck down as unconstitutional. Yet when it comes to abortion, some members of this House seem to think anything goes. Tell them they can't even talk about it. It is unconscionable. It is not our money we are now controlling. We do not fund abortions--we haven't for decades. We have now begun to restrict what groups do with their own money. Who will suffer with we penalize the funding for these groups that provide certain health care services? Women and children. Some of the most impoverished women and children in the world. This goes to our basis values. As a country that is prosperous, that has the means to provide health care so that fewer women will die, funding family planning is a statement that these women matter. That every child in this world matters. I urge my colleagues not to go along with the undemocratic restriction on international family planning organizations. This vote comes down declaring your support for women's health, preventing abortion, and truly standing up for democratic values. Support this motion to strike.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, my last Republican colleague said that marriage in itself is a penalty. I am married 22 years now, and it is not a penalty. My colleagues, the Democrats have a real plan to eliminate the unfair marriage tax penalty within a budget that continues to pay down our debt, that protects Social Security and Medicare, and allows for a prescription drug benefit that is so important to seniors today who are being choked by the cost of prescription drugs today. Our plan eliminates the marriage penalty, and it rewards work by strengthening the earned income tax credit. It fixes the marriage penalty, it keeps us on a course of fiscal discipline, that course that has brought us the most successful and the most dynamic economy in history. It is a responsible tax proposal and tax relief that the American public supports. I support marriage penalty tax relief for the families of Connecticut. That is what our plan does and it does not risk our fiscal discipline. It provides $76.4 billion in marriage tax penalty relief and an additional $12.7 billion for working families who need the help that is provided by the earned income tax. It is a plan that ends the penalty on marriage, it rewards work, and it allows our economic boom to continue. The Republican plan is too big. It is skewed toward the wealthiest Americans. As part of the $800 billion Republican tax cut, it threatens Social Security and Medicare, it does not allow us to continue to pay down the debt that has brought interest rates down in this country, and it does not allow us to offer a prescription drug benefit through Medicare, which is the way in which it should go. It is not fair. It provides nearly two-thirds of its benefits to the wealthiest Americans and only about 41 cents a day in tax relief to families making less than $50,000 a year. It is not tax fairness. Support the Democratic alternative.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank my colleague from Texas so much for his kind words and for organizing this effort, and along with my colleague from New Jersey of really being the leaders in this effort of trying to genuinely craft a piece of legislation that addresses what the crying need in the country is on some relief from the cost of prescription drugs. I would like to just say that that is what to me is what the contrast is. I know folks will say, well, you know, you are being partisan about this, but I think if you take a look and you listen to where my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) has been these last 18 months and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and others, they have been a consistent voice for trying to bring some sense to this issue of the rising cost of prescription drugs and the fact that senior citizens are making decisions about whether they pay their rent or buy their food or buy their medication. That has not been in the last 2 weeks, not in the last month but over the life of this Congress. They have been out there day after day after day trying to do something about this. This is where I think the public gets this. I think the public really understands this. We found a matter of about a month ago that a report was written to our Republican colleagues by some folks in an organization called Public Opinion Strategies, and the report to our Republican colleagues was, ``You guys better address the issue of prescription drugs because it's a serious issue, and you need to show the public that you care. It doesn't make any difference whether you really care but let them know that you care. And that you better talk about a plan even if you don't have a plan, because it's important.'' We did not need someone from Public Opinion Strategies or anywhere else to tell us about the serious plight of people in this country and particularly seniors around the cost of prescription drugs. Nobody had to force that mantra on us if you stand the way you do with your constituents and your meeting with them and talking to them. I do office hours at Stop N Shops, large grocery stores, every week. If you are out there the way that you have been and you are listening to what people are talking to you about, you do not need someone from Public Opinion Strategies telling you to scramble around, put together something so that you can say that you care about an issue when there are folks like yourselves who have been on this floor day in and day out for the last 2 years, almost 2 years, talking about this issue. If you took a look at the newspapers or the TV news a couple of weeks ago, you might have thought that this Congress actually did something to help seniors with the crushing cost of prescription drugs. There were our colleagues on the other side of the aisle running around, slapping each other on the back, holding press conferences and taking credit for helping seniors with prescription drug costs. But, sadly, that activity 2 weeks ago had more to do with the press conferences and the taking of credit rather than passing some real Medicare prescription drug benefit that people so desperately need. Quite frankly what happened here 2 weeks ago was a sham. That was because a Republican pollster and a handler told them that if they did not look like they were at least doing something, that they were going to pay a price in the fall elections. But the public is savvy and the public is smart. What is interesting to me is that at the very time when our colleagues on the other side of the aisle designed a program that was going to be run through the private insurance companies or through the HMOs, and as you both have said so eloquently, people who came up here to testify from the industry said, ``We don't want any part of this. This is doomed to failure. We don't want to take on the risk.'' At that very same time, though you would think that the private insurance companies and the HMOs would be trying to at least curry some favor with the public or to at least give an impression of their wanting to do what insurance companies have been in the business of trying to do, and that is to share risk, that is what insurance is about, they then announced the first part of July that, wow, we are going to pull the rug out from under seniors by jumping out of the Medicare Choice Plus, that HMOs were going to get out of the Medicare business. In my State of Connecticut, 52,000 people are now going to scramble to figure out what they do about their insurance coverage. If you want to add insult to injury, we have got a group of folks here who say, whoa, let's entrust the prescription drug benefit through these entities that if their bottom line is less than the profit margin that they want to make, not that they are not making a profit, but it is less than what they want to make, they vamoose, they go away and say, ``You're on your own.'' It really is mind-boggling that they would in the midst of this incredibly important conversation about trying to provide a benefit. It just says to me loud and clear that they are not interested. They are not interested in providing a benefit because they do not want to take on the risk, and they are not interested in providing health care coverage if it does not meet that profit level that they anticipate to make. I met yesterday in two meetings with close to 350 seniors. I did that and brought in some folks to talk to them because the HMO coverage does not end until December 31, so that they have got some time. I wanted to try to reassure the seniors in my community not to panic because we are going to try to get some answers, try to get them some information where they can go back to the original Medicare, they can get a MediGap supplement and so forth, so that they should not feel that they had to jump before they had any understanding about what premiums were going to be, what benefits were going to be, et cetera. One wonderful woman, she just darted up, and she said, ``Congresswoman DeLauro, I know you're telling us not to panic, but we are in a panic. We are. We don't know what we're going to do. We don't know if we're going to get coverage. We don't know if our benefits are going to be cut. We bargained for this. What is going to happen to my prescription drugs?'' I am standing there saying to this woman not to panic, but they have every reason to be concerned. I am still going to reiterate not to panic because we want to try to see what we can do, but people are very concerned, and that is compounded because they joined these programs, many of them, because it held out a prescription drug benefit. One woman in another meeting got up and she said, ``They wined and dined us. They met with us. They took us out for lobster dinners. They talked with us about this and then they pulled back. And this is just 3 years ago. They have now pulled back.'' Lots of those folks joined up because it was a prescription drug benefit because they are being choked to death by the cost of prescription drugs. To just enforce what you have said and to associate myself with you, that on this floor we could see that they produced a plan on the other side of the aisle that put the fate of our seniors in the hands of these institutions who will not wait around to see whether or not something works and that provides a benefit to seniors. But again if the profit motive is not there, they are gone. And they are gone in a heartbeat. That says something loud and clear to me about the values of those institutions, as well as the values of the people in this House who decided that that was the way in which we ought to deal with prescription drugs in our society today, because that is what this issue bears on, is the issue of values, what we believe are the priorities and what are the things that are important. When you get to looking at budgets, they are living documents. They are living documents. It is about who we are as a country. And we have laid out a prescription drug plan as Democrats that I am proud of. I really am proud to stand behind this. It says, Let's go through a system that we know has made one incredible difference in the health care of seniors in this country. Ninety-nine percent today of our seniors are covered by Medicare, and it may have its warts and it may have some difficulties, but it has worked. It is tried, it is true, it is reliable, it is trustworthy, and seniors have come to count on it. Let us work through something that has roots and that people do understand and trust and says it is defined for you, it is voluntary, it covers all of the seniors, everywhere in the country, and it will make a difference in driving that price down, and it will bring you some relief, so that while you are ill, you know you can get and pay for the medication that will help to make sure that you are healthy and that you are safe. I am proud to be here with my colleagues tonight to talk about it, and I know we will every single night, talk about this issue which plays such an enormous role in the lives of families today.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I am astonished that we are again debating an amendment that would stifle biomedical research and impose political will on an agency whose work is based on the non-partisan rule of science. This is an invasion into the FDA's drug approval process--a place where Congress has no right to be. We are not scientists. We created the FDA and charged it with determining which drugs are safe and effective for use in this country. We were wise to do so--the FDA has a long history of protecting the public from drugs that are uncertain or unsafe. This amendment would change all that. In an attempt to impose their beliefs on all of America, anti-choice proponents of this amendment would have you believe that it would apply to drugs solely for the purpose of the chemical induction of abortion. But, in fact, we know that it would reach far beyond that. Often times drugs are approved for one purpose, and later are found safe and effective for treating an entirely different condition. For example, the drug Doxil was originally approved by the FDA as an AIDS treatment. But later, in June of 1999, the FDA approved the same drug for the treatment of ovarian cancer. Even mifepristone, the target of this amendment, currently shows promise for use in the treatment of breast cancer, benign brain tumors, ovarian cancer, and even prostate cancer. Let's call this amendment for what it is--an attempt to score a political point on abortion. Unfortunately, the casualties in this political move are biomedical research, independent scientific evaluation of medicines, and patient access to reproductive health drugs. What this amendment would in fact do is begin a path whereby Congress decides, based on political and ideological considerations, what drugs it thinks America should or should not have access to, and then blocks the FDA from taking action to approve drugs deemed inappropriate. Let me ask you, what would this lead to next? Which political issue would be the target of the next attempt to thwart research or invade the FDA's drug approval process? We must be mindful of the dangerous precedent this amendment would set. Now is not the time to limit the FDA in their work to determine the safety and efficacy of promising new drugs in America. This amendment would not only limit the FDA but it would have a chilling effect on biomedical research, particularly women's health research, which has been severely understudied for years. This amendment may be aimed at one issue, but it will have consequences for millions of Americans. When we halt action on an entire category of drugs, we erase the possibility that those drugs could hold for treating other conditions. We stamp out the scientific pursuit of medicines that heal with one attempt to limit the safe practice of abortion--which I might remind my colleagues is still a legal right in this country. This Congress has made biomedical research a priority. We have agreed that we have an obligation to fund the search for cures and better treatments for disease in this country. We have the unique opportunity as lawmakers to use public policy to actually improve people's health and improve their lives. But what this amendment would do is exactly the opposite--it would place political gain ahead of real progress. It would replace the gold standard of drug approval that this nation has come to trust with congressional restrictions based only on personal ideology--not sound science. Speaking as both a legislator and a cancer survivor, I know the value of modern medicines. To be quite frank, I am offended by the idea that some lawmakers think they can dictate to the FDA what work they can do on proposals that could improve the lives of Americans. I urge my colleagues--don't force your opinion regarding choice on the FDA and the people who rely on it for sound, scientific judgement. Allow the FDA to continue the important work it does in evaluating all potential pharmaceuticals. Do not subject the FDA scientists to the personal philosophies of some Members of this House. Preserve the promise of biomedical research and new drugs for all Americans. Defeat the Coburn Amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend my deep thanks and appreciation to our chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), our ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for all of their hard work in crafting this bill. It is a tough job to balance the important priorities that the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies needs to address each and every year. As my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) pointed out, this bill really does deal with the basic sustenance of life for folks in our country. I might add that the unrealistic budget constraints that have been placed on the subcommittee made our work even more difficult, made their work more difficult this year. As always, there was the effort to work together in a bipartisan fashion to try to do what is best for American farmers and for all of America's families. So I think that that, in fact, is a tribute to the chairman and to the ranking member. Let me add my voice to that of my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and encourage the majority to please remove the sanctions legislation from the supplemental bill, because it in fact violates the agreement with the minority, and it places enormous restrictions on both this bill and on the supplemental bill. We did not come here to do harm, especially in light of having an agreement that was made and just willy-nilly violated last evening. That is wrong. We are going to hold up the process in both of these pieces of legislation which contain basic relief and help to farmers in the United States, plus people who are waiting to see what is happening in here for relief of all kinds in both of these two bills. We have tried to work together under the constraints, as I said, of the budget forces to shortchange a number of important priorities. The subcommittee has been denied the opportunity to meet America's priorities and reflect the values, to provide a strong safety net for farmers in crisis, to ensure safe foods on America's dinner tables, and to guarantee the proper nutrition for the children and the elderly. We could have better provided for these priorities if we had a budget resolution that did not put tax cuts for the wealthy above the needs of hard-working, middle-class American families across this country. Each year contaminated food causes up to 81 million cases of food- borne illnesses, as many as 9,000 deaths. It costs Americans over $8 billion a year in lost work and medical care. The situation requires decisive action. This bill undermines progress by underfunding the Food Safety and Inspection Service by more than $14 million. When one wants to take their youngsters out to dinner, they want to know that they are going to go some place and they are going to be safe and sound with whatever they are eating on those tables. The WIC program guarantees women and children receive solid nutrition and health advice. We could have covered more people if we increased the allocation for the WIC program. My final comment is that there is a great crisis facing farmers today. They are begging Congress to do something. We must. It is our responsibility. The allocation dealt the subcommittee prevents it from fully addressing the depression-level prices our farmers face. We need to emphasize Congress' responsibility to ensure the long-term safety and security of all Americans and their families. People deserve our highest commitment to these goals.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stupak-Boehlert bill to add $20 million to the Meals on Wheels Program. This amendment adds much needed funds to a program that truly plays such a vital role in communities across this country. Meals on Wheels improves the physical and the mental health of seniors in our communities. It provides them with a balanced, nutritious, and appealing diet. Last year the program brought over 1.9 million meals to almost 10,000 seniors and the disabled in Connecticut alone. The West Haven center in my district distributed 1,000 meals a day to homebound citizens of 15 towns throughout south central Connecticut, 200,000 per year. I might add that Mayor Borer, the mayor of West Haven, Connecticut, and myself last year went on the Meals on Wheels truck, went place by place and helped to deliver the meals. And it was amazing. This program is a lifeline for people. It is one of the most remarkable experiences that I have had in being a Member of this House. Meals on Wheels helps those elderly who find themselves homebound, unable to go out and shop for their own food. It allows seniors who would have been forced into a nursing home to stay in their home and maintain their dignity and their independence. It helps to lower health care costs while allowing seniors to retain that independence. It also fills an important need in the community for the preservation of ties with our elders. By providing seniors with essential food every day of the week, sometimes, I might add, the only hot meal an elderly citizen receives, it builds important links and relationships between the men and women who deliver the meals and the seniors who take advantage of the program. In some cases, these people are the only visitors that seniors get all day. Meals on Wheels is truly an example of neighbors helping neighbors. I call on my colleagues, support the Stupak-Boehlert amendment, support a program that provides an essential safety net to millions of seniors and strengthens the community ties between generations.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, today I cast my vote in support of the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, because I believe that physicians and other health care professionals should be on an equal playing ground when they negotiate contracts with health plans. The Quality Health Care Coalition Act would provide limited relief from the antitrust laws by allowing self-employed physicians to negotiate collectively with large managed care organizations regarding contract terms that protect patient confidentiality, increase patient choice and improve quality of care. It would restore balance in the market by increasing physicians' power to negotiate for their patients with large managed care organizations. It would not force health plans to accept terms and conditions sought by health care professionals, it would simply allow physicians to band together as a bargaining unit for purposes of negotiation. Unfortunately, this bill has been plagued by ``poison pill'' amendments, designed to divide and conquer the long-time supporters of this legislation. Representative Tom Coburn, authored a poison pill amendment that attempts to limit access to legal abortions. Mr. Coburn's amendment would restrict health care professionals from discussing health insurance coverage for abortions. Many fear that this restriction could prevent physicians not only from negotiating coverage for legal abortions, but also prevent them from discussing methods and procedures for providing referrals elsewhere. I joined my pro-choice colleagues in voting against this amendment. However, this amendment passed. As was the intention of this poison pill, this left me and my pro- choice colleagues with a Hobson's choice--an affirmative vote for physicians and patients tied to a restriction on choice or a negative vote against physicians and patients to prevent an anti-choice measure from going forward. I voted for final passage of this legislation with the hope that the Coburn amendment will be struck when this bill reaches conference with the Senate. If this legislation proceeds through conference and reaches the President's desk with the anti-choice Coburn amendment intact, I urge the President to veto the bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we missed a golden opportunity to make prescription drugs more affordable for America's seniors. We passed a sham Republican leadership bill that fails to give all the seniors the Medicare prescription drug coverage that they so richly deserve. We need to have a prescription drug benefit that is affordable, that gives doctors the right to prescribe medications, that addresses soaring costs; and yet the proposal yesterday does not accomplish any of those goals. It does not cover all seniors, it does not give doctors and seniors the right to choose the best medications, and it does nothing to address the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs. The Democratic plan would provide American seniors with an affordable, voluntary, and reliable prescription drug coverage. The plan is firmly rooted in the Medicare program that seniors know and that they trust. In contrast, the Republican plan is complex, and it is built on an already failing HMO system. The Republican leadership forced through this plan that gives seniors false promises and false hopes. It might be the right remedy for the insurance companies, but it certainly is the wrong remedy for America's seniors.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. It does not protect a decision that was made by members of the Committee on Appropriations to take vital steps towards sanction reform, to lift the ban on food and medicine to innocent citizens of the Sudan, Libya, North Korea, Iran and, yes, Cuba. I worked hard, along with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), along with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), to work to make sure that we could lift these sanctions to be able to help American farmers, to be able to sell their products abroad, because they are suffering from low prices today. This rule ignores what we did, two votes in the subcommittee and in the full committee. Let me say, while we worked hard with our colleagues, we were not, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and I, included in the deal, in the negotiations. This is not a compromise. It is a capitulation. That is what this is about. The Republican leadership has made a promise that sanction reform is going to be attached to some other future legislative vehicle, but that vehicle remains a mystery. We are going to leave sanction reform by the wayside. There is too much at stake for our farmers, and our foreign policy should not punish people who suffer under repressive regimes. These unilateral agricultural sanctions hurt the most vulnerable in target nations. Imagine, my God, food and medicine we want to deny to people. Who are we, for God's sakes? Just 2 weeks ago in this body, or several weeks ago, we talked about permanent trade relations with China; and we said that China that abuses human rights, that pirates our intellectual properties, that proliferates nuclear warfare, is all right but Cuba is not. It is mindless. It is absolutely mindless and disingenuous. Vote against this rule.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, a month ago the Republican leadership was told by their pollsters that if they did not at least start to sound like they cared about helping seniors with the cost of prescription drugs they would pay a heavy political price. That is why we are here today, saddled with a sham Republican prescription drug bill and a rigged process. The Republican proposal does not provide all seniors with an affordable Medicare prescription drug benefit. It benefits insurance companies. It is complex, takes the very worst from an already failing HMO system. If one needs a medicine that their HMO does not approve, their only recourse is to appeal to the insurance company. My God, we know that that does not work. Today I was notified by an insurance company that offers Medicare+Choice HMO coverage to seniors in Connecticut that they are no longer going to be able to offer them coverage. Seniors know that they cannot rely on the HMOs, but the Republican leadership is building their plan on this crumbling foundation. The Democratic Medicare prescription drug plan is rooted in the Medicare program that seniors know and trust. It provides affordable, voluntary, dependable coverage, and a guaranteed benefit. It gives seniors security and dignity. Reject the Republican sham bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this past winter, families across the Northeast saw their budget stretched to the limit by skyrocketing home heating oil costs. Over 50 percent of families in Connecticut depend on oil to heat their homes in the winter months. For middle-class working families in my State and throughout the Northeast, the increase in home heating oil prices broke the bank. I received thousands of calls from my constituents asking for help. For example, I received a call from Thomas Marcarelli of East Haven. He has a family with four children, ages three, six, seven and nine. In order to pay for heating oil, he has had to send in his mortgage payment late, cut back on his family's groceries, and drop his thermostat by 10 degrees with children in the house to stretch out his supply. It appears that Mr. Marcarelli and his family and families across the Northeast may face another very cold season. This winter they are estimating that home heating oil will increase by another 10 percent. My concern is, and I support this amendment, but we had an opportunity several weeks ago with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) when he offered such an amendment and was defeated by two votes. In terms of allowing the President the authority to release the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) offered this amendment in committee just a few days ago. I support this amendment, but my concern, as always, is that we try to play politics with these issues when families in my part of the country and families in other parts of the country are suffering because, in fact, the Republican leadership has not allowed us to create an energy policy in this country. It fails to reduce our dependence on oil. That is the direction that we need to move in. We need to support this amendment tonight. But we also need to do something about solar renewable energy. We also need to do something about providing the opportunity for an energy policy that meets the needs of the people in this country.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, It gives me great pleasure today to pay tribute to a remarkable individual who has left an indelible mark on our community, my dear friend, Al Mayhew. On Sunday, June 25, friends, family and colleagues will gather to recognize his many accomplishments as he celebrates his retirement. Al's dedication and commitment to his country and his community is inspiring. After entering the United States Air Force in 1939, Al served for twenty years, stationed in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, the Pacific and North America. During the course of World War II, as a pilot, Al completed 45 missions with the 301st Fighter Squadron of the 332nd Fighter Group. As a man with many interests, Al's professional career is truly remarkable. Upon coming to New Haven, Al began a twenty year career at Pratt & Whitney, and later took on a part-time position at Lincoln Bassett Elementary School as a tutor for four years. For the past twelve years, Al has been working with the Elderly Services Department of the City of New Haven where he has become a familiar face throughout our community. A leading advocate for seniors, Al has given them a strong voice in the City of New Haven--one which will never be forgotten. Today, at the age of 79, Al will retire from his professional life, though it is our hope that he continues to remain active in the New Haven area. In addition to the variety of professional positions he has held, throughout his life, Al has also been involved in a myriad of civic organizations. As a member of the Literacy Volunteers of America, Retired Senior Volunteer Program, Community Action Agency Nutrition Program, and a board member of the South Central Connecticut Agency on Aging, to name just a few, Al's compassion and efforts have made a real difference in the lives of many of our community's most vulnerable citizens. For over sixty years, Al has dedicated himself, both professionally and as a volunteer, to improving the quality of life for our children and families. His exceptional record of service should serve as an example for us all. I have had the distinct privilege of working with Al and I am honored to call him my friend. It is with great pride that I join his wife, Judith, their seven children, friends, and colleagues to congratulate Al. I also extend my sincere thanks and appreciation for his many contributions to our community and best wishes for continued health and happiness.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment. America's veterans have put their lives on the line for their Nation, and big tobacco should be held accountable for what they did to our veterans. Allowing the Justice Department to continue its suit against the tobacco industry will return millions of dollars in needed funding to the veterans health care system. That is fitting, considering the number of our Nation's veterans that now suffer from tobacco-related illnesses, that to this day, I might add, the tobacco industry denies are as a result of cigarettes. Who supports this amendment? The American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. That is who supports it. Let us take a look at who opposes it. Philip Morris and the big tobacco companies, the folks who stood before the committee with their hands raised and talked about their product as not being addictive. That is what they said. That is what they told the American public. The group that tells us that when today's smokers die, that the next group of folks they go to, ``their replacement smokers,'' are 12-year-old kids. Those are their words, ``replacement smokers,'' 12-year-old kids. Mr. Chairman, it is time for big tobacco to pay the price for the damage that they have done. We should hold them accountable for their lies. Support veterans health care, protect our children from the tobacco industry's predatory practices. I urge Members to support the Waxman amendment today.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that today I join people from the Greater New Haven area, to pay tribute to one of our most outstanding community members, Miguel Laguna. Miguel will be retiring after a twenty-six year career as the Executive Director of Crossroads, Inc., a bilingual drug rehabilitation program. Crossroads has been an invaluable asset to area residents since its inception in 1973 and Miguel has been the driving force behind its success. Through his commitment, dedication, and most importantly, compassion, Crossroads has grown from its original 25-bed capacity to its current capacity of 101. In only twenty-five years, this is indeed a remarkable achievement. With Miguel's foresight and leadership, Crossroads has continually met the ever-changing needs of individuals seeking to recover from chemical dependence. The development of a women's program, the eventual extension of services to pregnant and parenting women, and the addition of contracts with the Department of Corrections and Office of Alternative Sanctions has allowed Crossroads to reach out to our entire community. Crossroads offers some of our most vulnerable citizens the services and programs they need to live happy, productive lives. Though originally serving primarily Latino clients, Crossroads now serves a culturally diverse population, making a real difference in the lives of hundreds of area residents. Miguel has not only had a tremendous impact on our community professionally, but in his civic life as well. Throughout his time in New Haven, he has served on a variety of boards, commissions and task forces aimed at enriching the lives of our children and families. Whether as a police commissioner, a member of the Mayor's Task Force on AIDS, the National Puerto Rican Coalition, or the Regional Planning Committee for Mental Health, Miguel has demonstrated a unique commitment to public service. His unparalleled dedication is reflected in the myriad of local, state, and national awards which have been presented to him throughout his career. Tonight, friends, family, colleagues, and community members will gather to salute the many accomplishments of Miguel Laguna as he retires from his position as Executive Director of Crossroads. It is both an honor and a privilege for me to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation for his many contributions to the City of New Haven and send my best wishes for continued health and happiness as he enjoys his retirement.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey-McCarthy-Stabenow- DeLauro amendment and the strongest possible enforcement of our gun laws. For more than a year, the Republican leadership and the gun lobby have delayed and they have denied attempts to strengthen our laws to keep guns out of the hands of kids and criminals. All the while they claim we are doing nothing to enforce existing laws. Their mantra on the enforcement issue is a smoke screen, pure and simple. Their strategy: if they twist the truth, they confuse the issue. This issue is a question of balance. We all agree no law is worth being on the books if it is not enforced effectively. That is why we need to strengthen the law and strengthen enforcement. We have asked for simple enhancements in our gun safety laws. Close the gun show loophole, put child safety locks on guns, and ban the importation of high-capacity ammunition clips. To complete the balance, we must also help the men and women of law enforcement do their job. Today we have the opportunity to do that by funding the President's request for $150 million to fund a thousand State and local prosecutors in high gun violence areas. But once again, the Republican leadership and the gun lobby oppose both sides of the balance, both stronger laws and stronger enforcement. That is a lethal combination for our children and for our police on our streets. The gun lobby has spent millions telling Americans that we do not need any new gun safety laws when we do not enforce the laws already on the books. At the same time, they have also fought enforcement tooth and nail. For years they attacked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the lead agency for enforcement of Federal gun laws. As a result of the gun lobby's attack against the ATF, it has not had enough resources to effectively do what they are charged to do, which is to enforce our gun laws. But suddenly, over the past year, the gun lobby changed their tune. Now they are all for enforcing the laws they so vehemently opposed for decades. The hypocrisy should be obvious. The reality is that our existing gun laws are being enforced. This administration's strategy of strengthening our laws and empowering law enforcement has worked. Since 1992, violent crime has dropped 20 percent and violent crimes committed by guns fell by more than 35 percent. Investment in State and local law enforcement is up nearly 300 percent since 1993, allowing Federal, State and local law enforcement to create strategic alliances to combat gun crimes. Federal prosecutions of firearms laws have risen 16 percent since 1992. The results are clear. Tougher laws, stronger enforcement, safer streets. This amendment would provide a much needed increase in our support for gun crime prosecutors. Now is the time to stop talking about enforcement and start doing something about it. We have that opportunity here tonight to increase the opportunity of local law enforcement to commit themselves to making sure that our gun laws are enforced through support. If my colleagues support stronger enforcement and safer streets, then they will support this amendment tonight.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment that is offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), and I wanted to thank her for her leadership on this issue. Once again we are forced into a debate about the access to a legal medical service for those whose voices are often ignored and whose rights are neglected. Regardless of our views on abortion, the Supreme Court has been very clear. The law of the land remains that women have a legal right to choose an abortion. This right remains intact even if a woman is incarcerated. For women in Federal prisons, the Bureau of Prisons is their sole option for health care. There are also extensive studies about women in prisons who are victims of sexual misconduct. The reality is that most women who enter the prison system are poor and many are isolated from family support. According to the terms of this bill, they are effectively excluded from their legal right to an abortion if they are unable to come up with the money to pay for one of their own. Some of my colleagues question why we should feel any sympathy for a woman in prison trying to get an abortion. Yes, it is true she may have broken the law. It is true she must give up certain rights. But the courts, the courts have ruled that she does not have to give up her right to an abortion or her right to adequate medical care. This is not about having sympathy; it is our obligation to provide these women with the reproductive health rights to which they are rightfully entitled under our Constitution. This bill effectively strips that right for the vast majority of female prisoners who are unable to earn enough in prison jobs to pay for private medical services. That is why we should approve the DeGette amendment today. I ask my colleagues to stop, stop the erosion of this legal right. Stop restricting women's access to health care services. Vote ``yes'' on the DeGette amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, the Hostettler amendment is another example of how far out of step the Republican leadership is with the American people. They refuse to move ahead with gun safety legislation, and now they have gone out of their way to punish Smith & Wesson simply because Smith & Wesson wants to include a child safety lock with their handgun. It is mind-boggling. Further, they would gut the Communities for Safer Guns Coalition. This is 411 cities and towns across the country who have agreed to purchase handguns for their police officers from gun makers that agree to include child safety locks with the guns they sell and to keep a close eye on the gun dealers that sell to criminals. Let me tell my colleagues that if they vote for this amendment, if they support it, they turn their backs on the values of this country and on the American people. This is the people's House. Overwhelmingly this country wants to see gun safety legislation. And what is more, those who vote for this amendment will be living up to the old saying that ``no good deed goes unpunished.'' They will be telling people that they not only oppose mandatory child safety locks but they are going to punish companies who voluntarily include child safety locks with their guns. What is next? Shall we punish car manufacturers who make safe cars, pharmaceutical companies that put child safety locks on aspirin bottles? Smith & Wesson, my colleagues, have done the right thing. They have agreed to include a child safety lock with the guns they sell. They have agreed to help ensure that dealers who sell their guns will only sell to law-abiding citizens. We should be thanking them. Instead, the gun lobby and the Republican leadership of this House want to prevent local efforts to make our communities, our neighborhoods safer, and to punish the gun makers that act responsibly. This is so wrong, it is unbelievable. We should reject this kind of revenge by legislation. Let us defeat the Hostettler amendment tonight.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join Area Cooperative Educational Services [ACES] in paying tribute to Veronica MacKenzie as she celebrates her retirement. For over three decades, Ronnie has dedicated herself to ensuring that the special needs children of the Greater New Haven area have access to a quality education. I have often spoke of our nation's need for talented, creative, enthusiastic teachers who are ready to help our children learn and grow. Ronnie is just that kind of educator. Throughout her career, she has touched the lives of thousands of young people. Ronnie's career began as a special education teacher at Jerome Harrison in North Branford, Connecticut. For over two decades, Ronnie has worked at ACES, an exceptional organization which has strived to meet the challenges of special needs students. As the Coordinator of the Academy since 1990, Ronnie has been instrumental in creating a supportive environment where children with disabilities can realize their potential and build a strong foundation for their future success. Before the U.S. Supreme Court acted to protect their basic freedoms, hundreds of thousands of disabled children received no formal education at all because they were deemed unable to learn. We should never go back to a time when the potential of so many bright young people, with so much to offer, was squandered due to a lack of understanding. Ronnie has been an unparalleled advocate for these children--giving them a strong voice and the opportunity to learn and thrive. With thirty-two years in special education, Ronnie is a true model, not only to her students, but to us all. I have always held a deep respect and tremendous admiration for our nation's educators. The commitment and dedication that Ronnie has demonstrated is remarkable and I applaud her many contributions to our community. I am proud to stand today to join with the friends, family, and colleagues who have gathered this evening to recognize her outstanding accomplishments and to celebrate her retirement. Ronnie has indeed become an irreplaceable member of our community. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation for her many years of service to the children of our community, as well as my best wishes for continued health and happiness.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman-Evans-Meehan amendment. We should allow the Justice Department to continue to fight the tobacco companies on behalf of America's veterans and on behalf of America's children. It is past time that the tobacco industry is held accountable for all of their years of deceit. By allowing the Justice Department to continue its suit against the tobacco industry, we will return millions of dollars in needed funding to the veterans health care system. That is fitting, considering the number of our Nation's veterans that are now suffering from tobacco-related illnesses that to this day the tobacco industry denies are the result of cigarettes. Each year the VA spends $4 billion treating illnesses caused by cigarettes. The Defense Department spends $1.6 billion. Medicare spends another $20.5 billion per year. The costs sap the strength out of our health care system and rob our veterans of the quality of care that they deserve, and this money goes directly to paying for veterans health care. The tobacco industry knows that people who use their products will not be around for long, so they have to go out and they find what they call ``replacement smokers.'' ``Replacement smoker'' is the euphemism, a callous euphemism, that tobacco executives use for our children. They see our kids as the route to future profits, even though they know for a fact that of the 3,000 kids that they hook each day, one-third of them, over 1,000 of our kids, will die of a tobacco-related illness. And these people should not be held accountable for this? It is unconscionable. So why would someone put a provision into this bill that would protect the tobacco companies from being held accountable? Why should they place the needs of the tobacco industry ahead of veterans health care, our children and the taxpayers that have to foot the bill for these health care costs? Could it be, could it be because the tobacco industry has spent over $31.8 million on political contributions, roughly 80 percent of which have gone to the Republican Party? Could it be because Philip Morris has given Republicans over $1 million in soft money this year alone and is the Republican Party's second largest contributor? It is about time that this Congress said loud and clear that the days of special treatment for the tobacco industry are over. This is not for trial lawyers, it does not rob money from veterans, and it is well within the law to use these funds for affirmative litigation. That is all the tobacco companies want, is to create a smoke screen, and we have had enough of it. Mr. Chairman, we are never going to forget the image, the visual image in our mind of that hearing when the tobacco industry CEOs raised their right hands, swearing, swearing, that nicotine was not addictive. They lied on that day, as they continue to lie about the health problems of their product. And now they should be protected? They should not be protected on the floor of this House. That would be egregious. This amendment will help to strengthen veterans health care in this country. It will finally hold tobacco industry accountable for their lies. Support veterans health care, protect our children from the tobacco industry's predatory practices, support this amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, let me just say that the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York, who is a friend but who yesterday missed an opportunity to vote to increase funding for veterans health care by allowing the Department of Justice to proceed with their suit against the tobacco companies which, in fact, would recover billions of dollars because the tobacco industry lied to the American people about the addictive quality of its product. We would have been able to return that money to the Veterans' Administration in order to provide for health care for veterans in this country who are suffering. Yet, the chairman missed an opportunity to vote to increase funding for veterans health care, and those on the other side of the aisle voted against us being able to provide these needed funds. So it is disingenuous to talk this morning about how they want to try to preserve resources for veterans health care. Let the record show that the opportunity was there and he said no, as did others. This bill, including the issue on veterans, includes the issue of housing. Unfortunately, this legislation takes us in an opposite direction from our promise for affordable and accessible housing in this Nation. It says to people who want to buy a home, the American dream, this robs thousands of Americans by cutting first-time home buyer assistance by $65 million. It cuts 120,000 new rental assistance vouchers that would help hardworking, low-income Americans. It cuts community development block grants by $295 million, robbing cities large and small of the lifeblood of community projects. It has cutbacks for the most vulnerable, $180 million in funds for local programs for the homeless. This bill undermines hardworking low- and moderate-income Americans struggling to make ends meet and it does that in order that we may provide a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to join the Milford Senior Center as they celebrate their 30th Anniversary and pay special tribute to an outstanding individual, and my dear friend, Kathi McDonnell-Bissell. The senior community of Milford, Connecticut is indeed fortunate to have such a dedicated individual working on its behalf. As the Executive Director of this tremendous organization, Kathi has transformed the Milford Elderly Services Agency. When she first came to our community, the Elderly Services Agency was run by two full time and one part-time staff members and located in a church basement. Today, centered at the Milford Senior Center, the agency has grown into a quasi-municipal office, working with the Mayor and city officials to ensure that the ongoing needs of the elderly are a priority in the community. Kathi has been the driving force behind this incredible transformation--her unwavering commitment leaving an indelible mark on our community. Kathi's extraordinary record of service to the residents of Milford extends beyond her work at the Senior Center. She has been an instrumental force in bringing a number of social service programs to Milford, as well as creating a city-wide network of social services. She has played an integral role in the development of the city's first food bank, furniture exchange, and emergency housing programs. Kathi also began a city-wide project to ensure that no child in the city of Milford would go to bed hungry. Her many contributions to the entire Milford community are truly invaluable. Kathi has been recognized by numerous local, state and national organization for her tremendous work--a remarkable tribute to her outstanding commitment to public service. Perhaps more importantly, behind the myriad of awards, citations, and recognitions, one can always find the warm, nurturing character that has endeared Kathi to everyone who has had the pleasure and privilege of working with her. I cannot began to express my thanks and appreciation for the assistance that she has given to me, my staff, my family, . . . our community. I am honored to stand today and join the family, friends, and community members who have gathered today to pay tribute to Kathi McDonnell-Bissell. I am sure I speak for many in saying that her undaunted spirit and vision has been an inspiration to us all. The Milford community is truly indebted to her for the compassion, generosity, and commitment she has shown.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter-Horn amendment to increase the amend of funding that we provide to the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Institute of Museum and Library Services. It allows these groups to expand and continue what is truly important work that goes on around the country in these areas. These are agencies that are charged with bringing our history, the beauty, the wisdom, culture, into the lives of all Americans, young, old, rich, poor, urban, rural. We in the Congress have said that preserving our national heritage and making it accessible to all Americans is a goal that is worthy of our support. It is time now to make sure that these agencies have the resources that they need to achieve this mission. This is about our humanity, this is about our civility. This is what defines us as a people. These are the institutions that help to capture who we are and what we are about. Many years ago I spent 7 years as the chair of the Greater New Haven Arts Council in my city of New Haven, Connecticut, so I know firsthand how the arts not only enrich lives, but contribute to the economic growth of the community. Federal investment in the arts is not only a means of support for the endeavor, but rather, our dollars, which represent a small fraction of an annual budget, are used to leverage private funding and fuel what is an arts industry. This industry creates job, it increases travel and tourism, it generates thousands of dollars for a State's economy. If Members cannot be persuaded on the humanity portions of this effort and the cultural and the preservation of our heritage, gosh, I would hope Members would be turned on the issue of the economics of a vibrant arts community. In addition, the NEA is an important partner in bringing arts education to more American youngsters. Arts education is critical. It helps to plant seeds of art appreciation. It cultivates talent that is yet to be discovered in the young minds of our kids around the country. In partnership with State arts agency, the Endowment provides $37 million of annual support for from kindergarten through 12th grade arts education projects in more than 2,600 communities across the country. When we are teaching youngsters music, we teach them mathematics. It is found and proven that the development of a musical education in fact increases the mathematical ability of youngsters today. The National Endowment funds professional development programs for art specialists, classroom teachers, and artists. We are truly just beginning to understand the benefit of arts education and the way in which it helps to foster self-esteem for our youngsters, helps them to choose a constructive path rather than turning to violence. We need to continue to support these efforts. We know that the arts builds our economy, it enriches our culture, it feeds the minds of adults and children. The NEA, the NEH, the Institute for Museum and Library Services, need to have an increase in their missions. It is time we gave them our support. Let us focus in on the legacy that we want to give to future generations on who we were and what we did. Let it flower in our music, in our painting, in our buildings. Let generations to come understand who we are and what we have done. This is an expression of our humanity. Let us not shortchange it. Let us understand that it imbues who we are and how we live our lives today.