Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic substitute provides targeted tax relief for middle-class families, small business owners, and farmers without putting at risk or fiscal discipline, our investments in education, and targeted tax relief that we could be providing to America's middle-class families. The Republican tax break is another example of their misguided priorities. Before they have done anything to strengthen Social Security and Medicare or provide a prescription drug benefit for our seniors, they provide a tax break to the wealthiest 2 percent of all Americans who control 40 percent of the wealth in this Nation. It comes out to $105 billion over the next 10 years, over $50 billion in tax cuts to the richest people in the United States. That is their idea of tax fairness: millions for the rich, not a penny for the middle class. We have heard a lot about family farms and small businesses. Well, the Democratic tax cut ensures that the family farm will be passed on. It guarantees small businesses can continue as family-owned businesses. It provides immediate tax relief to these families, and it does this without squandering our surplus, undermining Social Security and Medicare, or risking our investments in education, health for our seniors. Vote for the Democratic substitute.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if my colleague from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) knows what the average salary is of the lawyers who sit at the table who represent the big business industries, that have in the past been opposed to trying to do something to protect the safety of working men and women in this country. The story of ergonomics is one of unending scientific study in the support of ergonomics and unyielding and baseless delaying tactics on the part of ergonomics opponents. We have had an 8-year ordeal of exhaustive scientific study that supports the science of ergonomics as, in fact, a way to protect workers and to save America's businesses money. For each year of delay, another 1.8 million U.S. workers experience a work-related musculoskeletal disorder. The Department of Labor estimates that the ergonomics rule would prevent about 300,000 injuries per year, save $9 billion in workers' compensation and related costs, about one-third of general industry work sites should be covered by the rule, protecting 27 million workers. Fewer than 30 percent of general industry employers currently have effective ergonomics programs, and it is probably because of the high- priced lawyers that they have hired to keep this rule from being promulgated. About a third of the industries, or over 600,000 incidents, are serious enough to require time off from work and cost businesses 50 to $20 billion in workers' compensation. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 34 percent of all lost workday injuries are related to ergonomic injuries. When my colleague introduced this rider into the bill, it was said that this was a limitation and not a rider. I said at that time and I say, again, you can dress up a pig, you can put lipstick on it, you can call it Monique, but it is still a pig. This is a rider. This is a continued delaying tactic in this legislation. The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1998 that ergonomic industries are directly related to work, that higher on-the-job physical stress leads to more ergonomic injuries, that most people face their greatest exposure to physical stress at work. Interventions that reduce physical stress on the job reduce the risk of injury. Since the process was begun during the Bush administration, over 1,000 witnesses have testified, more than 7,000 written comments have been submitted. OSHA has included 1,400 studies in the ergonomics rulemaking record. Science supports ergonomics. It protects worker health in this country. It will save American businesses billions of dollars. Why then do they want to continue to delay? Why do we want to do that? Let us support the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). Let us move ahead with an ergonomics rule, so, in fact, what we can do is to do what we are sent here to do and not to do harm, but, in fact, to protect working men and women in this country.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This bill cuts the heart out of opportunities for education, for health, and for the well-being of our families in order to be able to provide for, in the long run, a tax cut for the wealthiest people in this Nation. Let me give my colleagues one example of one area of cuts. It dramatically will cut the Child Care Development Block Grant. It specifically singles out child care funding to be the first on the chopping block. Our Nation's children on the chopping block. Not long ago, a group of Members, 120, wrote to the committee urging an increase of funding for this critical program. They were a bipartisan group of Members, I might add. Now we have to stand here today, and we have to stand and oppose a proposed cut in funding. How can this be? The Child Care Development Block Grant provides access to quality child care to thousands of working families. It allows parents and in many cases single working mothers as they leave home each day to be able to support their families, to be able to make sure that their children have child care. Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow working families, but most importantly, the children of these families, to fall through the cracks. Even the current funding levels serving only one in 10 eligible children are completely inadequate. Studies show that serious problems with child care quality persists, leaving children at risk of important development and school failure. Mr. Speaker, children are our Nation's most precious resource; they are our future. In these times of great economic prosperity, how can we leave these youngsters behind? Where is our commitment to child care in our country if we ignore the needs of children zero to 3, we ignore the needs of children 3 to 5, we ignore the needs of working families in this bill? Let me just tell my colleagues that budgets, in fact, are not just numbers on a piece of paper. Budgets are a reflection of our values and our priorities as a Nation. Defeat this rule and defeat this bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this Republican bill puts irresponsible tax breaks before critical funding for education. We need to invest in our schools so that our children receive the best education in the world and are prepared for working in a 21st century economy. We must expect the best from our schools, then give them the tools that they need to succeed. Smaller classes help students to get individualized attention, discipline, and the instruction that they need. But the Republican bill repeals efforts to hire new teachers to reduce those class sizes and will not make classrooms the places where our students can learn and our teachers can teach. The most important thing that we can do for our children's education is to make sure that teachers are highly qualified in their subjects and well trained in new technology. Yet this Republican bill cuts teacher training and recruitment by $1 billion. The bill cuts reading instruction and tutoring for 100,000 children and math improvement programs for another 650,000 youngsters. It cuts after-school programs by 40 percent; programs that serve 1.6 million children in more than 3,000 schools across this country. By denying a $1.3 billion in funding for local school districts to make urgent and needed repairs to school buildings, this bill denies 5,000 school districts the leverage that they need to fix leaky roofs, upgrade plumbing and bring schools into compliance with local safety codes. It cuts Head Start funding by $400 million, denying more than 50,000 low-income children critical Head Start funding. And it eliminates college preparation for more than 640,000 high school seniors. Budgets are not numbers on a page. We bring to life our values and our priorities through our budgets and the bills that we pass in this people's House. This Republican leadership bill denies the opportunity to make sure our youngsters get the very, very best start in life. It does not reflect our values. It does not reflect our priorities as a Nation. It does not give education the proper place that it deserves in our society, that is, as a great equalizer to make sure that youngsters no matter where they come from, no matter what their background is, no matter what their gender is, be able to achieve according to the talents that they have been given by God in this country. It is a bad bill. We ought to turn it down.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me just say one word about summer jobs. I held recently in my community with about 140 young people, the issue was not summer jobs, but it was a youth violence conference to talk to young people about their own responsibility with regard to youth violence. Some of the kids came up to me afterward and they said to me, what is going on with this summer job effort? We were relying on that. Our families were relying on that. We want to try to participate. Can you help us try to get the resources that we need in order to be able to have summer jobs? They saw this as a part, again, of the responsibility in the context of youth violence. If we have young people who are working and who are off the streets and at the same time gathering some skills and in many instances, these young people are trying to provide their own families with some assistance, economic assistance at the same time. It is a very, very worthwhile investment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), my colleague and friend. The Department of Labor's request essentially was designed to ensure the success of America's workforce investment system and its programs, trying to serve American workers and their employers. The point of our speaking up here today and the point of this amendment by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is that the bill that we have up on the floor here today seriously jeopardizes this goal. We have seen the employment rate in this Nation fall since January of 1993 from 7.3 percent to 3.9 percent. It has risen a little bit in the last month or so, but the long and the short of it is it is at its lowest level in 30 years. We have seen 21 million new jobs that have been created, and employment population rates are at record highs. We understand that, and we are happy about that. But the fact of the matter is that not all have prospered. Earlier, a colleague on the floor said that we have all of these industries and businesses which have all of these jobs that are available and they do not have people to fill them. Well, they just proved the point of the Jackson amendment by saying that in fact what we do need to do is to train folks for those jobs, and we have the capacity to do it. But not all have responded because of this economic environment that we are in. So many Americans are being left behind. We have pockets of high unemployment, pools of untapped, underutilized workers who exist out there and who are at risk; and there are dislocated workers. I cite my own third district of the State of Connecticut, a State, I might add, that has been heavily dependent on defense and one that has been dependent on the insurance industry. Insurance in my State has downsized, dislocating a lot of workers. The defense industry has downsized, dislocating a tremendous amount of workers. Those workers wanted to continue at Sakorsky and at Pratt & Whitney and at the Stratford Army Engine plant, but they have nowhere to go today. These are people who have kids in college, who have mortgages to pay, and who are fighting for their lives in order to be able to meet their responsibilities and their obligations as parents and as breadwinners for their families. Mr. Chairman, we are leaving them high and dry, without the opportunity to get further skills training, to get the kind of training that they need to put them back into the economic mainstream once again. We have 90 million adult Americans who perform at low levels of literacy. These are individuals who are not well equipped to meet the challenges of the new economy. Yet, this bill slashes the kinds of programs that provide hard-working Americans with the skills that they need to compete in today's economy. That is the issue my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), is making. That is the one that we are trying to impress on people here today. Mr. Chairman, we want people to be able to realize their dreams in this country. That is why we deal with school-to-work programs, that is why we encourage people to work and to take on that responsibility. That is what this country is all about. That is a very deep-seated value in the United States. Mr. Chairman, in April of 2000 there were 13 million untapped and underutilized Americans, 5.2 million who were unemployed, 4.4 million who were out of the labor force but wanted to work, and 3 million who worked part-time, but wanted full-time work. In March of 2000 there were 22 metropolitan areas with unemployment rates in excess of 7 percent. The low skills of many of the poorest Americans reflect accumulated disadvantage. Poor families and neighborhoods in which they grow up and live, underfinanced, often ineffective schools that they attended, lack the access to jobs that provide meaningful training and opportunities for advancement. Any attempt, any attempt to improve their schools has got to address the barriers that they face. Mr. Chairman, we cannot leave people behind in this country. That is not what this Nation is founded on. It is founded on responsibility, hard work. Let us train people to do it. Let us vote for the Jackson amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to vote to commend Israel for its courageous decision to withdraw from southern Lebanon. Israel stands as a reminder of the courage and strength of the human spirit--and what it can accomplish. Against all odds and enemies, the people of Israel have united to build a strong nation. It has not been an easy journey, but it has been a triumphant one. Now, more than ever, as Israel strives to build a stable and peaceful region, it is vital that we unite behind its efforts. This critical step must be followed by equal efforts by Israel's neighbors. It is vital that all foreign forces withdraw from Lebanese territory, that all acts of terrorism against the people of Israel cease, and that southern Lebanon be given a real chance of rebuilding and reintegrating. Southern Lebanon must never become the home base for attacks against Israel again. Congratulations again to Israel for taking this brave step and for continuing to stand as an example of courage, vigilance, and dedication to peace.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I support a trade regime that advances the living standards of Americans and that creates hope for the Chinese people; and that is why I oppose permanent normal trade relations with China. Because it says one more time that we are pushing ahead with trade agreements without any regard for environmental and labor standards, and without any regard for religious and political freedoms. We never proceed on a trade agreement without protection for intellectual property. All would concede the consequences for companies here and the rule of law there. I want to see trade bring new openness to China, new economic opportunities and the rise of freedom. But what has the experience of the past decade taught us? Look at their record. China has engaged in unfair trade practices, pirated intellectual property, participated in weapons proliferation, suppressed democracy, and acted with belligerence towards Taiwan; all this while Congress has provided most favored nation status. Do we truly believe that by granting China permanent MFN and foregoing the yearly review that these abuses will somehow improve? Let us vote against this effort. Let us impose on China the opportunity for freedom, and if they cannot do that, they should forfeit the benefits that other nations enjoy. Without granting permanent MFN to China, and without their membership in the World Trade Organization, our trade deficit with China has soared from $2.8 billion in 1987 to $68.7 billion in 1999. This is what happens when we are completely indifferent to standards abroad. This imbalance costs jobs in Connecticut and across the country. It hurts employers. I have listened to arguments that trade with China will bring change--that once China is open to American goods, they will also be open to American ideals of freedom. I want to see trade bring a new openess to China, new economic opportunities, and a rise of freedom. That's why I supported MFN for China during my first years in Congress. I believed that argument. But what has the experience of the past decade taught us. Let's look at China's record. But, China has engaged in unfair trade practices, pirated intellectual property, participated in weapons proliferation, suppressed democracy, and acted with belligerence toward Taiwan. There is no evidence that China is responding and that it deserves a new trade regime with the United States. And all the while, this Congress has granted China Most Favored Nation Trading Status. Do we truly believe that by granting China permanent MFN, and forgoing a yearly review, that this record or abuses will somehow improve? Right now, on labor standards and Democratic rights, China is surrounded by a Great Wall. It is holding back its people's hopes for democratic freedoms. It threatens to bring down economic standards here. This Congress should say to China clearly and unequivocally that China must break down this wall, truly open its markets, raise labor standards, and freedom, or China should forfeit their rights to the benefits that all nations enjoy. Only by voting ``no'' will this great body ever again debate what standards should matter in our trade relations with China. Oppose permanent most favored nation status for China.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk over the past few weeks about competing plans to handle Social Security. Since 1935, Americans have been able to count on an assured income when they retire through Social Security. Social Security has been there to lift millions of seniors out of poverty, give them the ability to live with independence and dignity. We should be working to strengthen Social Security, not to undermine it. There is no doubt that we need to reform Social Security, but it must be the right kind of reform. The wrong kind of reform introduces risk, takes money away from Social Security and undermines that assured income that has served as a solid foundation during retirement years. Plans to privatize Social Security would particularly harm American women because they earn less, live longer, take time out to raise children and are more likely to work part time. Mr. Speaker, we should take this historic opportunity to invest our surplus in protecting and strengthening Social Security instead of gambling it on the ups and downs of the stock market. If we act now, we can use the budget surplus to pay down the debt and use the interest saved to strengthen Social Security. This plan is a sound investment for America's future and for all Americans, young and old.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's assertions at the outset about where we are going and what is important about when the baby boomers retire is accurate. I agree with that. What I think we have to deal with is how in fact we use the issue of, again, the surplus to assist this process. And we cannot count on this, but the fact of the matter is if we continue the rate of growth that we have been at in the last several years, which has been pretty sustained, and I understand that we cannot totally rely on that, one could project that in fact that rate of growth over the next number of years could allow us to really correct the social security problem that we have with the baby boomers moving into retirement. So there are a number of scenarios, without talking about cutting people's benefits or raising the eligible age. I think there is merit to thinking and talking about the payroll tax and cutting that back. It is up for discussion. Maybe we are in the same mode. This notion of this 2 percent that we put in these retirement accounts, my view ultimately, this winds up increasing a deficit situation that we have. It also means that at some point we have to draw on general revenues and so forth. So the current proposal that is being made I find to be troubling in this sense that I have expressed on that, and I think that there is room to have a discussion on what we want to do and where we want to go on this issue.

Ms. DeLAURO. Well, if you are going to deal with cutting back, where does the gentleman continue to be able to finance the effort, which is what is ultimately, in my mind, and when we start to talk about other proposals on Social Security, is that if the gentleman then looks at the utilization of the surplus, or the gentleman wants to do it in one way by bringing down the payroll tax.

Ms. DeLAURO. I understand that.

Ms. DeLAURO. Again, you can, over a certain period of time, deal with funding the credit with the budget surplus, and the gentleman could get it. There are reports out there about that, the gentleman could probably get yourself between now and 2015 where the gentleman might be able to do that, and again, the Center for Budget Priorities talks about 2015 to 2030 where the credit would be financed through spending cuts or larger deficits. And, again, this is a proposal, a similar kind of a proposal that Martin Feldstein has made in terms of partially privatizing Social Security; by his own, estimate, the credit would be financed with higher tax revenues, which would have to be generated by higher tax rates of national savings and investment translated in terms of corporate profits, so that you are then dealing with a situation, if you will, in what we call the outyears here of either dealing with higher tax revenues or, again, some rate of national savings which there is not a guarantee of.

Ms. DeLAURO. I would be happy to, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman from Iowa, and I thank the gentleman, if I just might for one second, and I do not want to take any more of the gentleman's time, is for the gentleman's diligence, your commitment to the health of people in our country and in our society, both in your own profession as a doctor in which the gentleman has really made his own personal commitment, but the role that the gentleman has played in trying to bring us to some understanding and conclusion about patients and the decisions, medical decisions that affect their lives and your hard work on the patients' bill of rights. And I thank the gentleman.

Ms. DeLAURO. There has to be change.

Ms. DeLAURO. Well, I am pleased as well that the gentleman asked to be able to do this, because I think that there is room for discussion of the issues. Again, it is worrisome that we are, again, in two proposals that have been made in the last several days, which have captured the national attention that I think it is well worth pointing out, and again, in my view, I think one is terribly risky in this sense, as I started out my commentary, is that to somehow turn on its head the notion of this guaranteed annual income, which has been so important to people in their lives. It was not meant to be just that, the only income, but for some people, about a third of the beneficiaries of Social Security, that is the only income that they have, and to somehow tamper with that seems to be moving away from that guarantee that people have believed in. Then the notion of the savings accounts deals with increasing individual risk, which I think, again, threatens the system. Now, are there alternate proposals that we might consider to get where we want to go in order to make sure that there is that guarantee that does not put people at risk, in which case then you can try to look at how, in fact, we can as the gentleman pointed out increase people's financial wherewithal; certainly, we ought to take a look at that. I will tell the gentleman that in all of this, in terms of its effect on women and older women in our society, and if we do not go down this road in a very careful way about the unique situation that women find themselves in, then we are going to compound their vulnerability and increase their rate of poverty, and that is not where we want to go and what I see at the moment, in terms of a public policy direction, which has been espoused by Governor Bush, is that that, in fact, is where it leads. And I am not suggesting that is where you are and that there is not room for conversation and debate and discussion on this issue in a way that the gentleman has proposed, and there may be other ways, but it scares me.

Ms. DeLAURO. That is right. But if the gentleman utilizes this in terms of where is the greater gain, I do not know, because I do not know the intricacies and where it comes out with what the gentleman is suggesting. But if you are paying down the debt and thereby reducing interest rates and costs and then utilizing, I mean, it just seems to me that in terms of overall fiscal policy, I am not an economist, that the gentleman is then dealing with a much greater financial stability by being able to pay down that debt over a period of time which has a whole variety of different ripple effects in the economy when that interest rate comes down and what people can do and what business can do, et cetera, and the whole litany of the multiplier effect on all of that. So that seems to me to be a better direction for us to head than to look at personal accounts, which, again, I think leaves people at the mercy of a stock market and whether or not they are proficient in being able to invest. I cannot imagine, I do not know what the percentage is, but I do not know that there is a very large percentage of people who are so familiar with the stock market that they can do that, and there are those that do and those that cannot, and those that cannot will wind up dragging down those that can in terms of what they will have to make up in terms of lost dollars. The gentleman is suggesting another alternative here, which I think reasonable people can take a look at and sort out and begin to ask some questions about.

Ms. DeLAURO. That is right.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, what I want to do tonight is take a little bit of time to talk about, I think, an issue that is so critically important and vital to women in the United States, and that is Social Security reform. There is a very, very important debate that is going on about the future of Social Security right now, and I think it is important that women are included in this discussion. All of America's seniors have a stake in the conversation and the debate and the discourse about Social Security, but women have the biggest stake of all in the future of the program. We need to make sure that we undertake the right kind of Social Security reform for America's women. Since 1935, America's women have been able to count on the guaranteed income of Social Security. I make a point here, because the bedrock and fundamental principle of Social Security is that in the retirement years there is a guaranteed income on a monthly basis for the duration of an individual's lifetime, based on the amount of work and income one made during their working years. Since 1935, as I said, women have been able to count on that guaranteed income of Social Security. No matter what the stock market does, no matter what the state of the economy, Social Security has been there giving America's seniors the ability to live with independence and with dignity. It is, in fact, one of America's greatest success stories. Times do change and it is clear that we need to look at how we strengthen Social Security and make sure that it is safe and secure today for America's seniors but as well for the next generations of retirees. In 1999, there were 3.4 workers for each Social Security beneficiary, but in the year 2035 there will be only 2 workers per beneficiary. It has to be the right reform for everyone, and particularly, as I have said, for women. Social Security is uniquely important to women because retirement is especially hard on women. My mother, who is 86 years old, once said to me, Rosa, these are supposed to be the golden years but somehow they are often the lead years. My mother was essentially expressing, I think, and giving voice to the expression of the frustration and the fear that many elderly women have. In old age, women face all sorts of obstacles, stability and security, and without Social Security these obstacles would be even larger. Women account for 60 percent of Social Security beneficiaries even though they only make up roughly one half of the population. Three-quarters of widowed and unmarried elderly women rely on Social Security for over half of their income, and because women spend less time in the workforce than men, they are less likely to have pensions or to have been able to save and invest for their future. So that Social Security is their bedrock. It provides women with a dignified retirement that they can rely on. Women live longer than men. Women make less money than men in our society today; as a matter of fact, about 75 cents on the dollar. Women are also more likely to be dependents of workers and are dependent on their Social Security in their retirement years. As I said a minute ago, that women oftentimes outlive their spouses. In my State of Connecticut alone Social Security lowers the poverty rate among elderly women from 46 percent to 8 percent, 46 percent to 8 percent. That means that Social Security lifts over 100,000 Connecticut women out of poverty through Social Security. As I have just mentioned, during their years in the workforce women earn an average of about 75 cents for every dollar that men earn. In fact, the average female college graduate earns little more than the average male high school graduate. Again, for all of these reasons, strengthening and preserving Social Security is essential to the financial stability of America's hard working women. Again, it has to be the right reform for women. This week George W. Bush, the governor of Texas, presented us with an example of what, in my view, is the wrong kind of reform for Social Security, the wrong kind of reform which introduces risk, takes money away from Social Security, undermines the guaranteed minimum Social Security benefit, undermines the guaranteed minimum Social Security income, and leaves the retirement of America's seniors in the hands of the stock market. In fact, when George Bush was asked whether or not, under his program, seniors could expect a guaranteed minimum income, George Bush told America's seniors, and I quote, ``maybe; maybe not.'' That is not a risk that America's seniors should be forced to take. Just let me say, because I said at the outset, one of the bedrock principles of Social Security has been this guaranteed annual income. We turn Social Security on its head if we can no longer guarantee an annual income to seniors, so that this proposal, in fact, turns that principle on its head; does not make that guarantee and in addition to that increases individual risk. Now, the reason, one of the principal reasons, why Mr. Bush is forced to gamble with the retirement of America's seniors is because instead of using the historic budget surplus that we have, and it is historic, we have not seen a budget surplus in the last several decades, Governor Bush proposes to spend the bulk of that surplus on a trillion dollar tax cut that by all accounts, not my account, by economists, by some of the leading conservative publications, by the Wall Street Journal and others, is that its primary beneficiaries are those who are at the upper levels of the income scale, some of the wealthiest people in the United States. Now it is all right to think about giving people a tax cut, and I am a big supporter of tax cuts, but tax cuts that focus on working middle class families and not those who are doing well. That is not to say that they should not do well or they should not receive some acknowledgment or benefit from that wealth, but at this particular moment in the history of our country that is not where we ought to direct our attention. What we ought to do with the surplus is take this opportunity to strengthen Social Security, to strengthen Medicare, to build on Medicare with a prescription drug benefit, pay down our debt, thereby helping to lower the interest rates in this country, which directly benefits families who are struggling with mounting bills and credit cards and education loans and car loans. That is how we ought to utilize that surplus, in my view. It is the wrong kind of reform to take this surplus and focus it in on a trillion dollar tax cut. It is wrong for America's seniors and it is especially wrong for women. A more prudent plan would be to invest that surplus in Social Security. Let us not gamble with it, with the ups and downs of the stock market. We have seen in recent weeks and months about the fluctuation of the stock market. If we act now to use this historic opportunity, we can use the budget surplus to pay down that debt; to use the interest to strength Social Security; to protect its solvency through the year 2050. This is a sure bet. It is a sound investment for America's future and for America's seniors. There are two visions of Social Security's future. One of the plans strengthens Social Security by using the budget surplus to pay down the national debt, using the savings from the interest to strengthen Social Security and extend its life. The other, in my view, jeopardizes the Social Security system by using the budget surplus for a tax cut. We are at a critical moment in a debate and dialogue, and I encourage people around the country to think about this issue, to make their voices heard on this issue. I want to try to provide a few specifics with regard to women and Social Security. I talked about women earning an average of 75 cents for every dollar that men earn, and women earn an average of $250,000 less per lifetime than men. Three-quarters of widowed or unmarried elderly women rely on Social Security for over half of their income. Women spend less time in the workplace because they take an average of 11.5 years out of their careers to care for their families. Social Security helps to compensate for this in the following ways: Social Security provides retirement benefits that equal half of a husband's benefit. Divorced homemakers who are married for at least 10 years can also receive these benefits. For widows, Social Security provides benefits equal to 100 percent of their husband's benefits. By working parttime, women reduce the amount of funds they can put away for retirement or their eligibility for employee-provided pensions. In 1996, 49 percent of women between 25 and 44 were employed full-time, compared to 74 percent of men. That information is taken from the Institute for Women's Policy Research in a publication called the Impact of Social Security Reform on Women. In 1996, almost one-third of women between 25 and 44 were employed part-time compared to less than one out of five for men. Because women do take time out to care for their families, and because they only earn 75 cents for every $1 that men earn, women will have much less to invest in private retirement accounts. Privatization, as has been suggested by George Bush, would cut spousal benefits by one-third, leaving many wives at near poverty level and penalizing them for taking time out of the labor force to care for their families. This notion of privatization is very dangerous for women. While it is suggested today that there only be 2 percent of the benefits invested in private accounts, there is some information that George Bush talked about with reporters over the last couple of days that in fact could lead, that his plan could lead to complete privatization of social security. Let me just mention some of this information. On May 17, George Bush said it was possible that workers would eventually be allowed to invest their entire social security tax, not just a portion. The Houston Chronicle reported, ``Bush on Tuesday said his plan to create private savings accounts could be the first step toward a complete privatization of social security.'' The New York Times reported, answering a question about his plan, that Mr. Bush said, ``The government could not go from one regime to another overnight. It is going to take a while to transition to a system where personal savings accounts are the predominant part of the investment vehicle. So this is a step toward a completely different world, and an important step.'' That was reported in the New York Times on May 15. The other information here that I think, when asked the question about whether or not Americans could lose money through the plan that he proposed, he said that it was ``conceivable that a worker taking advantage of the investment accounts would get a lower guaranteed income from social security.'' The New York Times reported that, and I quote, ``Bush also refused to say how much benefits might be reduced for workers who created private investment accounts. `That is all up for discussion,' Mr. Bush said.'' That was reported in the New York Times on May 17. As I said earlier, as reported in the Dallas Morning News, ``Asked whether he envisions a system in which future beneficiaries will receive no less than they would have under the current system, Mr. Bush said, `Maybe, maybe not.' '' He has also admitted that he has not accounted for trillion dollar costs in making a transition to this new program. He acknowledged that he has not fully accounted for the cost of moving from the current system to his proposed one, costs that Vice President Gore pegs at $900 billion. It is not only the Vice President that has pegged these costs at a high rate, but we can again look to conservative publications, economists, people who understand what the transition would mean, and the millions of dollars that it would cost and billions of dollars that it would cost to make that transition. The Washington Post reported on May 11 that, ``The plan laid out by George Bush leaves out one of the most important factors, the cost. According to a new report published by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Bush's privatization plan would cost $900 billion over the first 10 years. These costs occur because the social security system must simultaneously pay out current benefits while privatization drains over 16 percent of the amount of money coming into the system. Combine this with the costs of George Bush's nearly $2 trillion tax cut, and the Bush plan will leave multitrillion dollar debts as far as the eye can see.'' The essential issue here is that there is not any question that we must do something to make sure that we strengthen and protect the social security system in the future because of what it has meant in the lives of working Americans. Today, two-thirds of seniors rely on social security for over one- half of their income. We cannot play fast and loose with reform of the social security system. At a time when we need to make the reforms, we have a clear opportunity, given the historic surplus that we have. In a prudent society and in a commonsense society, it makes all the sense in the world to say, let us take this opportunity to put the twin pillars of retirement security, social security and Medicare, on the path to real stability for today's people who need to take advantage of these systems and are eligible for them, and for those who come along in the future. That is what I am trying to suggest here this evening, as well as to make the point that, particularly for women in our society, if we play fast and loose with the social security system, we will increase the ranks of poor older women. Today one of the largest groups of our society who in their later years find themselves in poverty are older women. We should not compound that problem at this moment in our history, not when we have worked so hard and diligently to try to put our fiscal house in order. Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues and I call on the American people to engage in this debate and in this discussion, and pay particular attention to what happens to women in our society as we go about trying to reform our social security system.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez amendment and thank the gentlewoman for her hard work in support of the women who serve our Nation overseas. This amendment would extend to the more than 100,000 women who live on American military bases abroad the right to make health decisions and access available care as they would be able to do here at home. This amendment would not commit public funds, not one taxpayer dollar, for abortion. It would simply allow servicewomen--or the spouses or dependents of servicemen--to use their own funds to pay for an abortion which would be legal if they were stationed in the United States. We all have our own views on the issue of abortion. But the fact remains that it remains a legal option for American women. Unarguably, women serving in our armed forces are entitled to all the constitutional rights they work each day to defend and protect. To deny them the right to use their own money to obtain health care on their base if it is available is unfair to those committed service women. Many times these women are stationed in hostile nations where they may not know the language and have few or no civil rights. Denying our female soldiers or the wives of make soldiers the safe and quality health care they could have on base could in fact be putting them in danger. This amendment is about preserving the rights of American soldiers and their families serving abroad. It is not about promoting or considering the legality of abortion. A vote for the Sanchez amendment is a vote to support these servicewomen stationed far from home.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, our seniors are facing skyrocketing prices for their prescription drugs. They are scared. For millions of seniors, a prescription drug benefit is the difference between getting the medicine they need for their health and what they need to do in order to pay mortgages, what they need to pay rent, what they need to do to pay for food. That is what the decisions are that our seniors are making today. They are forced to choose between purchasing that medication and buying groceries. The problem with prescription drug coverage does not just affect one group of seniors. The Republican plan for prescription drugs is to focus on low income seniors, not all seniors. What we need to do is to cover all seniors with a prescription drug benefit. Prices are skyrocketing out of control. According to a recent study by Families USA, the price of the 50 prescription drugs most frequently used by seniors rose by twice the rate of inflation in 1999. Between 1993 and 1998, the price of the average prescription rose 40 percent. The situation imperils our seniors. Let us make sure that all of our seniors are covered for prescription drug coverage.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dreier amendment and I rise in opposition to the underlying bill and in support of responsible budgeting that meets America's priorities and reflects their values. I understand the concerns of this amendment's sponsors and I support their goals. Vigorous Congressional oversight is vital if we are to safeguard public funds and ensure that Federal agencies follow Congressional directives. But biennial budgeting will not improve oversight or guard against increased spending. In fact, it will have the opposite effect. Biennial budgeting will reduce the oversight that the Congress has over government spending. Agency heads, Cabinet secretaries, administrators, they all have to come to the Congress every year to justify their requests, to explain their actions, and to face tough questions. Why would Congress want to relinquish the power of the purse strings? With the biennial budgeting, these agencies have to only come every 2 years. We would have then less assurance that the agencies will spend money in the right way. I also challenge the principle in the underlying bill of sunsetting entitlement programs after 10 years. Does this include Social Security and Medicare? Why do we want to sunset Social Security and Medicare and deal with it every 10 years? Yesterday we had indication that there are those who would privatize the Social Security system. Is this another way in fact to threaten those bedrocks of our commitment generationally to seniors in this country? It makes no sense at all for us to be talking about sunsetting Social Security or Medicare or other entitlement programs every 10 years. This is a blueprint for bad budgeting. It fails to meet the needs of Americans. Support responsible budgeting that is responsive to the needs of working families. I call on my colleagues to reject the underlying amendment and to reject the Dreier amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, in the past decade, over 2 million women were diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer. One quarter of these women, America's mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives, will be taken from their loved ones by the disease. As a cancer survivor, I recognize the importance of cancer research and I am committed to increasing funding for research. Today, over 8 million people are alive as a result of the progress of cancer research. It has increased the cancer survival rate. With early detection, there is hope. I am living proof of that. I survived ovarian cancer because it was caught early. It gave me a fighting chance. Congress made a commitment to early detection when it passed the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act, providing low- income women with access to a mammogram or a Pap smear through the Centers for Disease Control's Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening. An important step. Early detection can make all the difference. As a result of this program, over three-quarters of a million women receive breast and cervical cancer screenings. Because it helped detect their cancers early, many of these women were easily treated and cured. In too many cases, women who are screened receive the awful news that they are facing cancer. They are without treatment because they are without insurance. This is wrong and, thankfully, today, we can do something about it. By passing the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act, we can ensure that these women are not left to battle cancer alone. The legislation will make these women eligible for Medicaid so that they can get the care and the treatment that they need. Being told that one has cancer is frightening enough; a million fears run through the mind all at once: Will I survive? What will happen to my family? The fear can be crippling. It takes the help of loved ones to build up strength to battle back. But love alone will not battle and defeat cancer. Access to treatment is critical. This legislation ensures that these women are given a fighting chance. I urge my colleagues to give it their full support.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania very much for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Long Island Sound Restoration Act. I have labored long and hard to try to see that we do clean up the Long Island Sound. It is critical to our environment and to our economy. It is one of the most complex estuaries in the country. It is located in a densely populated area. More than 8 million people live in the 16,000 square miles of watershed. Millions more flock to it for recreation. In fact, 10 percent of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of the Long Island Sound. It brings in more than $5 billion annually to the regional economy from activities like fishing, recreational, boating, swimming, and beachgoing, all of which require clean water. The bill we consider today is a sensible approach to a problem that has plagued our community and its efforts to clean up the Long Island Sound for over a decade; that is the fact there are no reliable steady funding sources for implementing the Sound's Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan, which we developed in 1994 to protect the Sound. This bill increases the authorized level we can spend on the Sound to $80 million a year for 4 years. It is a good first step. It is timely, because we need a dedicated increased funding source in order to be able to finally roll up our sleeves and to get the job done. It allows for a much-needed investment in clean water treatment facilities, provides a flexible approach for communities all around the watershed to reduce the pollution that goes into the Sound. If one wants to talk to people who know the importance of the Long Island Sound to the communities and to our economy, take a walk along the shore with a lobsterman. We are suffering a massive lobster die-off that has virtually wiped out the lobster population in the Sound. To date, we do not know what has caused the die-off, but we do know that a cleaner Long Island Sound would make incidents like this less likely in the future. I am pleased we are considering a bill like this today. I urge my colleagues to support the bill and help us clean up this treasure, our treasured Long Island Sound.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, May 3, 2000 is World Asthma Day. Many of my Colleagues and I are strong supporters of federal, state, and local efforts to create and enhance awareness of asthma and to improve asthma care throughout this country and indeed throughout the world. I would also like to extend sincere thanks to the many thousands of Americans and others who work day after day to try to improve the way asthma is diagnosed and treated. In the last 15 years, the prevalence of asthma has doubled throughout the world. More than 10 percent of children have asthma symptoms, and in some countries, as many as 30 percent are affected. In this country, asthma ranks among the most common chronic conditions, affecting more than 15 million Americans, including 4 million children, and causing more than 1.5 million emergency department visits, approximately 500,000 hospitalizations, and more than 5,500 deaths. The estimated direct and indirect monetary costs for this disease totaled $11.3 billion in 1998, in the United States alone. World Asthma Day 2000 is being marked by more than 80 countries throughout the world. It is a partnership between health care groups and asthma educators organized by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), which is a collaboration between the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization. On this day, thousands of people throughout the world will work together to create greater awareness of the need for every person with asthma to obtain a timely diagnosis, receive appropriate treatment, learn to manage their asthma in partnership with a health professional, and reduce exposure to environmental factors that make their asthma worse. Among those participating in World Asthma Day, via a special World Asthma Day Internet site (www.Webvention.org), will be Dr. David Satcher, Surgeon General of the U.S., and Mr. Nelson Mandela, former President of the Republic of South Africa and currently Chairman of the South African National Asthma Campaign. Ministers of Health from Japan, Turkey, Malaysia and other countries will also be available on the Internet to answer questions about how the implementation of international asthma treatment guidelines can benefit patients and reduce health care costs. In the U.S., local World Asthma Day activities are being coordinated by the NHLBI's National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) and are listed on its Web site (www.nhlbi.nih.gov). These activities range from local press conferences to school poster contests, and health fairs to science museum education programs. The NAEPP, along with the National Library of Medicine (NLM), Howard University, the Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the American Lung Association of the District of Columbia, and the D.C. public school system, will hold the official U.S. press conference to report on the state of asthma in the U.S. and what is being done to combat the problem. Invited guests include members of Congress; Olympians who have achieved their titles despite their asthma; Washington, D.C. elementary school students who have asthma; and representatives of selected community-based asthma coalitions from across the country. The press conference will be Webcast and shown on the World Asthma Day Web site. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that our colleagues will join in paying tribute to World Asthma Day and to those who suffer from this condition and those who are working to help them. It is hoped that with the continued support of the Congress, additional progress can be made in the efforts to prevent asthma, as well as to improve its diagnosis and treatment.