Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I think it also, as our colleague from New Jersey pointed out, I mean it leaves you turning everybody, if you will, into a tax collector. You then have an enormous amount of room here for error, for fraud, for all kinds of things that are happening. It seems to me to be a multiplier effect here. And I think the point you made before, that Mr. Pallone made before, about folks are so skeptical about, you know, what taxes are going away before you begin to impose another 30 percent on whatever they are doing. And you know the public is smart. They are getting hammered, especially working families are getting hammered, and they have no guarantee over what is going to go away ultimately and what is going to be imposed on them. I think the point that you made is so--really about the wage earner, the government wage earner; what happens with the property tax, in addition to which what happens to your own wages. So you are going to get hammered several times over on tax issues when people are feeling choked today by taxes, working people are. I know in my State of Connecticut, I mean that is the cry that I hear about all the time, you know, that wherever they turn, there is another tax that they are paying.

Ms. DeLAURO. Middle school kids. And we found, all the studies have found that you add $1.50 a pack, it reduces the smoking. So, really, we are running at cross purposes here.

Ms. DeLAURO. I think your point, and please, you have got some wonderful data and personal experiences here, but the point you were making about we are in the midst here of trying to reduce smoking amongst youngsters, kids.

Ms. DeLAURO. These are stocks and bonds.

Ms. DeLAURO. Let me just ask my colleague from Michigan, with the Armey flat tax, what happens to unearned income?

Ms. DeLAURO. Natural grain. We have children's shoes. Kids grow out of shoes very, very quickly.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and I also thank my other colleagues who were on the floor and those who are coming tonight to join in this special order to talk about the need to cut taxes for working middle-class families and to reveal the true cost, as my colleague from New Jersey pointed out, the true cost of a dangerous Republican proposal to impose a national sales tax on the American people. We have heard quite a bit lately from our Republican colleagues about tax reform. But behind the rhetoric and the calls to ``scrap the code,'' that mantra, if you will, repeated over and over again to scrap the code, behind the rhetoric of that phrase lie some very radical and some dangerous proposals that will actually raise taxes on working families and cut taxes for the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. I think we all agree that that is not reform, that is not what we are about. Abolishing the Tax Code, replacing it with a sales tax is one of those kinds of easy-listening proposals that Republicans are famous for. If you will, it is the legislative equivalent of elevator music; we might find ourselves humming along. But when we snap out of it, we realize that we hate the song. We have all had this happen to us. The Republican national sales tax is a very bad idea. My Republican colleagues argue that a national sales tax would be simple and it would be fair. But take a closer look at it and we find that there is nothing simple or fair about it. A national sales tax is not simple. In fact, several renowned economists have declared a national sales tax as unworkable. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal has panned the proposal and highlighted concerns about administration and about enforcement. A national sales tax is not fair. The Brookings Institute says that of the GOP sales tax, ``The sales tax would raise burdens on low- and middle-income households and sharply cut taxes on the top 1 percent of taxpayers.'' That is not fair. The GOP national sales tax proposals call for replacing all individual and corporate taxes with a 23 percent sales tax. But there is a new analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice that shows that the actual rate would be at least 30 percent. That means the American people would pay 30 percent more for everything, 30 percent more for everything. They would pay a 30 percent tax every time they opened their wallet. Talk about being nickeled and dimed to death. What does that mean to the average middle-class family? Let us take a look. This week U.S. News and World Report did a cover story on the cost of raising a child in today's world. It is an astounding piece. According to U.S. News, for a child born in 1997, a middle-class family will spend $1.4 million to raise that child to age 18. This is the cover of U.S. News and World Report this week, ``The Real Cost of Raising Kids.'' Would my colleagues believe it is $1.4 million apiece? Put a 30 percent tax on top of that and we are looking at life for working families under a GOP national sales tax. Let us take a look at a few examples of what a 30 percent tax means in real life. This is a box of diapers. It costs $23 today. Add a 30 percent GOP tax of $6.90 and we have the GOP price of $29.90. Let us take a look at what it costs for a pair of children's shoes. They cost about $20. Add the GOP sales tax, which is about $6, and we are paying $26 for the same pair of shoes. Let us take a look at a box of cereal, and we all want to give our kids cereal. We want to make sure that they are healthy. The price is $2.99 today. The GOP tax of an additional 90 cents would bring the price of a box of Kellogg's Raisin Bran, Two Scoops of Raisin Bran here, up to $3.89. Let us take a look at a loaf of natural grain bread. Price $2.59. GOP tax, 78 cents. GOP price, $3.37. And what about baby food? Price 45 cents. GOP tax, 14 cents. GOP price, 59 cents. This gives my colleagues some idea of the reality of a national sales tax and a 30 percent increase in that tax. Of course, we all know that children's shoes get more and more expensive. We saw here. So if they take a look at what happens as they grow up and they have a child that is a teenager, his or her shoes could cost $120. Add a 30 percent sales tax, and they are looking at a $36 tax, bringing the cost to $156. It is no wonder that, according to U.S. News and World Report, the cost of clothing a middle-class kid to age 18 costs $22,063. My colleagues will see on this chart that the GOP sales tax would increase that cost significantly. I think it is important to take a look at this chart. This is the GOP 30 percent sales tax list for working families, the cost of raising a child. If my colleagues will bear with me, housing, today's cost is $97,549. The GOP 30 percent sales tax would add $29,000. We are looking at a price tag from the GOP of $126,000. Food, $54,795. Add to that the 30 percent sales tax of $16,400. We are talking about $71,000 to provide food for our kids. Transportation costs, $46,000. Add $13,000 from the GOP tax, bringing it up to $60,000 to provide transportation for their child. Clothing, $22,000; an additional $6,600, $28,600 in providing clothing for their child. Health care, $20,700; $6,200 additional from the GOP tax; 26,000, almost $27,000 to provide health care for their child. Day-care, $25,600; an additional $7,700; $33,300 to provide day-care for their child while they are working and trying to make ends meet and scrambling every month to pay the bills. Miscellaneous costs, whatever it costs to raise kids, and we know that they are not all set and pat, we never know what is going to come up, $33-, almost $34,000. An additional $10,000 is what we would have to pay because of the 30 percent sales tax that the Republicans are talking about, bringing the total up to $44,000. The cost of a college education, every family wants to be able to send their children to college if they can afford to do that. And if a child can get into a college today, it is $158,000 to send a child to college. You would have to add a 30 percent sales tax to that, another $47,000, making it $205,000 to get your kid to school. What are working families in our country to do today? It is incredible what they are talking about with this 30 percent sales tax. That is what the Republican sales tax would mean in real terms to real families in this country. Let me just take one other group, because there is one group that would be hit harder than others by the Republican sales tax, and that is the senior citizens in this country. Senior citizens would gain nothing, nothing from the elimination of income taxes since most are retired and many pay no income tax. But a 30 percent sales tax would hit seniors on a fixed income right between the eyes. That is where it hits these folks. One of the most burdensome expenses that is faced by senior citizens is the price of medication. All of us when we go to senior centers, when we go to senior housing, that is what we hear about, is what they are paying for medication and for their prescription drugs which many of them need to lead productive and healthy lives. We have taken a look at five of the most common medications used by seniors and looked at how the 30 percent Republican sales tax would impact those prices. Bear with me. These are monthly costs. For blood pressure medication, $110 now, the sales tax would add an additional $33, GOP price tag, $143 a month for blood pressure medication. Arthritis, it is now $75 a month for medication, add another $22.50, bringing that cost to almost $100 a month for senior citizens, again people on fixed incomes. Diabetes, $125 today, $37.50 through an additional 30 percent sales tax, bringing the total cost per month to $162.50. It is incredible what we would be doing to senior citizens in this country. Heart disease, $90, $27 additional in sales tax, $117 is the final cost to them per month for again seniors, elderly, people who are on fixed incomes. Our mothers, our fathers, paying this cost per month. An inhaler, $80 a month today, the tax would add another $24, bringing the cost per month to senior citizens to $104. This is really incredible and outrageous of what they would add to the cost of people who are frightened to death that these later years, instead of being the golden years, are the lead years, when they are most vulnerable and we are going to add these kinds of costs to medications that they need. We need to have a real debate about reforming our tax system. I believe everybody here believes that. We need to cut taxes for working middle class families. We are for cutting taxes for working middle class families. This proposal moves us in the wrong direction. In fact, the Brookings Institute study of the GOP sales tax found that taxes would rise for households in the bottom 90 percent of the income distribution while households in the top 1 percent would receive an average tax cut of over $75,000. Millionaires get tax breaks and working families and senior citizens will be paying more. That is not reform. That is just so blatantly unfair to working families today. Let me open the conversation to my colleagues. I am sorry I took so long, I truly am, but it is important to put this in context. We need to be doing this every single day and every single night in this body to make the people of this country understand what our Republican colleagues and the Republican majority are talking about with a national sales tax. A bit later we can talk about some of the things that the Democrats have done and would like to do to cut taxes for working families. Let me yield now to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the whip of this House.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. We are some of the luckiest people in the world. We have an opportunity. We have an opportunity being here, that is how I view what we do, to truly try to make a difference in people's lives. And we are given a trust mandate, if you will, from the people who send us here. They say, protect our interests. You may not be able to do everything, but we give you our trust; we give you our vote to take there and to protect our interests. Part of those interests, a substantial part of those interests are the children of this country, the families that we represent. And I think if we do not take this opportunity to try to help in some way to make a difference in good public policy in this country, it is there, and the people are there; the majority of the people are there. We should not be thwarted by the will of a few who are prospering and their own self- aggrandizement is at stake rather than thinking about the interests of those young people that we all go to see, and we tell them how wonderful it is to be a Member of Congress, and all the things you can do as a Member of Congress. And if we do not do this, take this opportunity to protect our kids from smoking, the Speaker of the House is culpable and those that do not want to move forward on this are culpable. I do not believe they should go to a school again and represent to children that we are here to protect their interests because we will just have sold their interests out to the highest bidder. That is the danger that lies here in the next few weeks.

Ms. DeLAURO. Because we saw this same kind of effort where we had bipartisan support on campaign finance reform, and we saw what happened on this floor in the effort to thwart a vote on real campaign finance reform.

Ms. DeLAURO. It is the last thing that his friends in the tobacco industry want. And, therefore, he has had this reversal of opinion. And it was easier to say it several months ago when this was all in the throes of talk. Now we are down to concrete business here. Now we have a piece of legislation with bipartisan support. We can move this, and it is sad.

Ms. DeLAURO. I think it was just a few months ago when we have seen this absolute flip-flop. The Speaker made a speech to the American Medical Association and called for, quote, tough and sweeping tobacco legislation. And last week, as my colleagues have said and I am saying, we had a bill that cleared the Senate, the Committee on Commerce in the Senate. Folks are always saying, ``Why can you not do things here in a bipartisan way? Why can you not get bipartisan support for legislation and get it passed?'' Well, my friends, that is a bipartisan piece of legislation that the Senate is talking about. Some of us do not think it goes far enough. It talks about a $1.10 addition to the cost of a pack of cigarettes. My bill on the House side, Senator Kennedy's bill on the Senate side, adds $1.50 to a pack of cigarettes and it takes that revenue of $20 billion a year and puts $10 billion into health research and $10 billion into child care. But nevertheless, that is a bipartisan piece of legislation here and we are always talking about how we cannot come together. We have an opportunity to come together. And yet, and I heard this with my own ears on Sunday on the talk shows, the Speaker attacking this proposed bipartisan antismoking legislation. An out-and-out attack on where people have come together in recognizing that we have to do something about underage smoking, and in addition to that, that one of the keys to this is the amount that is charged for a pack of cigarettes. Senator McCain is talking about $1.10. Some of us are talking about $1.50.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right. And he has had a reincarnation, which I believe has occurred primarily because I think they took him to the woodshed to talk to him about what they were going to do or not going to do in terms of financial resources, given that the tobacco industry is the single biggest source of funding to the Republican party. And if I am correct, I would ask my colleagues to bear me out on this, it is that the Speaker was responsible for putting in a $50 billion tax break for the cigarette companies and then when that saw the light of day, and thank God it did, we were able to pull it back. But let me just mention about the gentleman's comment, because after Joe Camel's debut, Camel's share of smokers younger than 18 jumped from 0.5 percent to 32.8 percent. It is representing an estimated $476 million in revenue annually. So, quite frankly, if he knows this, then he is not telling it like it is, or he just has not done the research on the effect of Joe Camel and that advertising on our children.

Ms. DeLAURO. That is right. He did make that statement.

Ms. DeLAURO. Certainly.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join with my colleagues tonight. I apologize for being a little bit late to join them this evening. But this is, I think, a critical issue for this country and for this Congress. Mr. Speaker, we have really a rather extraordinary opportunity, and I am sure the gentleman has talked about some of these things already, and I apologize for repetition. But the fact of the matter is that every single year cigarettes kill more Americans than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, murder, suicide, illegal drugs, and fires combined. Three thousand kids start to smoke every day, a thousand of whom will die from a tobacco-related illness. We know that 90 percent of adult smokers began at or before the age of 18. We are finding this daily, every single day, with the disclosed documents that are now in the public purview. This is what we are really grateful for, because for so many years all of this data in this material was being held in some secret place, maybe, and thank God we have a court ruling that said it should see the light of day. Those documents prove without any doubt that the tobacco industry has meticulously studied our young people, pinpointed the most appealing way to market a product to our kids. Again, I do not know if this was mentioned. I was particularly struck by this 1984 R.J. Reynolds marketing report. For me, it says it all. It says that young people are the only source, and this is a quote, ``. . . the only source of replacement smokers,'' and that if kids ``turn away from smoking, the industry must decline, just as a population which does not give birth will eventually dwindle.'' The gentlemen, like I do, go to schools all the time. When the Members look at 12-year-old youngsters, middle school kids, because this is the age at which our kids are the most susceptible, and that is where the industry has focused their $6 billion advertising campaign, we really do look at these youngsters. They are healthy, they are bright, they are eager. They have their whole lives ahead of them. When we look out at that audience, we see all of these qualities about these young people. What we want to do is to make sure that what we do on our jobs provides these kids with that healthy future, with that ability to become adults and to be able to take care of themselves and their families, and to lead good lives. And it is interesting to note the contrast with what an R.J. Reynolds or the others that have been involved, how they view the audience, the very same audience that we are looking at. They are 12-year-olds as replacement smokers. That is why the campaigns have been directed at this effort. And we do, I think, have a fundamental obligation, particularly with all the data, with all the information, to turn this back to focus in on underage smoking. We have a wonderful group in the Third District in Connecticut which I represent, which we called the Kick Butts Connecticut Campaign, and they are middle school kids. These wonderful youngsters have taken upon themselves the responsibility for talking to their classmates, for going into younger grades and telling the younger kids that they should not start to smoke and what are the dangers of smoking. So we have kind of got this little army of about a hundred or so young people, middle school kids, practicing their presentations and their skits and going in with the self-confidence of talking to their peers and telling them not to smoke. Not everyone will follow that, but a lot of those youngsters we hope will not start on this road. But the fact of the matter is that underage smoking is against the law. That is ultimately what it is about here. And we have to do two things. We have to make sure that this industry is not going to continue to peddle this product which is killing our kids. And we need to, at the same time, be able to curtail their activities and we also need to be educating our kids about the dangers of smoking. I will say that this RJR campaign for Camel cigarettes, which as we all know about features Joe Camel, the cartoon character, by 1991 the Journal of the American Medical Association had found out that 33 percent of 3-year-olds and 91 percent of 6-year-olds could match Joe Camel to a photo of a cigarette. Ninety-eight percent of our teens correctly identified the brand when shown Joe Camel ads.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Georgia (Speaker Gingrich) promised a fair and open debate on campaign finance reform, it must have been an April Fools' joke. Unfortunately, it was not the only joke the GOP has played on the American people. In the 40 legislative days that this body has been in session this year, the House has failed to pass bills that the Republican leadership claimed were priorities. The American people have had no disaster relief, no IRS reform, no budget resolution and no campaign finance reform. In addition, the Republicans have completely ignored other issues that the American public are clamoring for action on. They have had no managed care reform, and there is bipartisan support for managed care reform, no bills to improve our public schools, and no minimum wage increase. Mr. Speaker, I only wish I could say this was an April Fools' joke. But it looks like the joke is on us and the American people.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last week we were here on the floor of the House talking about the extreme tax proposals being offered by our Republican colleagues and the Democrats' record of providing tax relief to middle-class families. Unfortunately, the Congressional Record incorrectly recorded my words. Here is what I said: ``We shouldn't let Republicans get away with saying that Democrats are against tax cuts.'' It appeared in the Congressional Record that I said Democrats were against tax cuts. That is an error, and it has been corrected in the Congressional Record. I know this was an innocent mistake on the part of the recordkeepers, and I want to say that I have the greatest respect for all of their hard work and the long hours, especially during Special Orders like this one. But the recorders are human, and in this case, the way my words were recorded changed the meaning of what I said to mean the exact opposite. As I have said, this has been corrected. But what was interesting is that this misprint suddenly engaged our Republican colleagues in a dialogue on this issue. If this error is what it takes to engage Republicans in a debate on tax cuts, then it is a good thing. Because I want to debate tax cuts with my Republican colleagues. That is why we were up here last week talking on this issue and why we are here tonight. I am happy to put the Democratic plan to provide real tax relief for working families up against these risky Republican tax schemes any night of the week. I understand why Republicans are nervous about the American people hearing the details of this plan, and I understand why they would rather divert attention and try to make political hay out of an obvious misprint. The Republican proposal to, quote, scrap the Tax Code and impose a 30 percent sales tax on the American people is a radical and extreme proposal. Democrats are the mainstream party on tax cuts. President Clinton and the Democrats have passed targeted tax relief for middle-class families. The Republican party is proposing a 30 percent sales tax increase on American families. Just one example, one group that would be hit harder than others by the Republican sales tax: senior citizens. Senior citizens would gain nothing from the elimination of income taxes, since most are retired and pay no income taxes. But a 30 percent sales tax would hit seniors on fixed incomes square between the eyes. One of the most burdensome expenses faced by senior citizens is the price of medication. We have taken a look at five of the most common medications used by seniors and looked at how the 30 percent Republican sales tax would impact those prices. Mr. Speaker, let me just put up briefly this chart. These are five medications that seniors continually avail themselves of and how the 30 percent sales tax would hit them: Blood pressure, arthritis, diabetes, heart disease and inhaler all would be increased between $24 and $37.50, to create prices that would make it incredibly difficult for seniors to have to pay for these basic medications. The Republicans' other tax plan, the flat tax plan of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), would raise taxes on 90 percent of Americans and it would provide a tax cut for the wealthiest of Americans. It looks like the GOP is up to their old tricks, helping the very wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans. Democrats have more credibility on cutting taxes than Republicans. That is why the GOP is left resorting to misquotes to try and change the subject from their extreme proposal. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to open up the dialogue with my colleagues to talk about the Democrats' record of providing real tax relief to working families, as well as these radical tax schemes being offered up by our Republican colleagues. Let me yield to my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who was with us on the floor last week and who has been an outstanding proponent of providing tax relief to working middle-class families in this country.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I think that the American public has every reason to be fearful of this kind of a tax scheme, if you will. It now gives me pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), who is joining us again this evening.

Ms. DeLAURO. Let me say thank you to the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from New Jersey. I think as we did last week and this evening and I venture to say that if we were not leaving tomorrow, because the Republican leadership does not want this House in session to debate the real issues that people are concerned about, that we would be up on our feet every single night trying to expose what are two schemes that would seriously hurt working people in this country. It is almost like a magical mystery tour that they are running about on here and trying just to create some smoke and mirrors, but we are going to be vigilant. Whatever it takes, we will stand up every single night and talk about what this means to seniors, what it means to working families and how in fact Democrats have provided tax relief for working families and how clear we stand in supporting tax cuts for working families in this country. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, which is until, as I understand it, 21 minutes after 11:00, to the gentleman from New Jersey. Armenia Concludes Successful Presidential Elections

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Once again, emergency funds are being held hostage by an extreme Washington political agenda. The President and Congressional Democrats proposed passing one single bill with funds for families hit hard by natural disasters, for our troops stationed in Bosnia, and for the businesses weathering the Asian financial crisis. Instead, my Republican colleagues have chosen to play political games. They have coupled money for rebuilding communities hit by El Nino, keeping Saddam Hussein in check, and preventing the former Yugoslavia from flaring out of control with almost $3 billion in unnecessary cuts in housing, education, and community services. Why? To force the President to veto this bill with its urgently needed funds. By playing politics, my colleagues in the majority are holding America's national security--at home and abroad--hostage. This is no time to play politics. People are suffering. American families' futures are in jeopardy. I urge my colleagues to vote against politics as usual. Vote against this bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last week several of my colleagues and myself stood in the well of this House, and we talked to the American public about the Republican leadership's lunacy and their crazy idea to impose a 30 percent sales tax on the American public. Lunacy. A 30 percent increase in the sales tax, a national sales tax. In the course of that debate, I spoke out and I said that Republicans want to say that Democrats are not for tax cuts, and that we should not let them get away with saying that Democrats are not for tax cuts, because, quite frankly, Democrats have been standing on their feet talking about targeted tax cuts for working middle-class families in this country, and not the richest people in this country, which is where the Republican leadership and my colleague from Texas (Mr. DeLay) are coming from. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. DeLay got up to speak this morning, and I say to him, watch the debate on the floor before you distort the words of a colleague. The Congressional Record is being corrected on how they misinterpreted the comments that I made. We have the tape. You are going to have to eat your words.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this so- called campaign finance reform debate. I hope my Republican colleagues do not think that they are going to pass this debate off as genuine campaign finance reform. It is a sham, it does not have any integrity, and the American people know that. I just want to ask my colleagues, who do they think they are fooling in this process? We know that this is a hodgepodge of measures that the House has already rejected. We know that this ``reform'' would intimidate voters from registering to vote. This particular piece, the Paycheck Protection Act, is a dishonest proposal. It is meant to silence workers, prevent them from having a voice in the political process. As a matter of fact, it requires labor unions to get written prior authorization before assessing a fee to finance political activities; and, conversely, it allows corporations to make political contributions unless and until individual shareholders or members object. It is mindless what they are proposing here today. The fact of the matter is and the tragedy of this is that, in this House, we have the votes to pass real reform. They figured out that we could pass it, so they have come up with this charade here tonight that says we have got to get two-thirds of this body in order to pass reform. It is nonsense. We can pass it. It is nothing but a way to deny the people in this country a voice in the democracy. It is wrong. Vote against these bills.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to send three Black Hawk utility helicopters to help the Colombian national police win the war on drugs. That is what this is about. Illegal drugs rob Americans of their futures. Today, approximately 600,000 Americans are heroin users; 1.45 million Americans use cocaine. At least a quarter of the 5- to 7,000 people who try cocaine each year become addicts losing their careers, their families, and often their lives. Colombian drug traffickers dominate the supply of these illegal drugs. Eighty percent of America's supply of cocaine, and over 6 percent of the heroin seized comes from Colombia. At a July 1997 hearing in front of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, the DEA testified that a drug ``flow reduction strategy will be extremely effective in denying transportation options to traffickers and substantially reduce the movement of cocaine in Colombia.'' By sending Black Hawks to the Colombian national police for the sole purpose of fighting the illegal drug traffickers and the thousands of guerrillas protecting them, the United States will provide state-of- the-art replacements for the national police's 36 Vietnam era Huey helicopters, four of which have crashed in the last 6 months and, I might add, which now have been grounded by the U.S. Army and the National Guard. Only Black Hawks have the capability to reach the poppy field in the Andes and to sustain ground fire attacks. I urge support of this legislation. Send Black Hawks to the Colombian national police. Stop the flow of illegal drugs at the source and take a critical step toward ending the illegal drug crisis in America.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last week I introduced the Identity Piracy Act to give the Secret Service and prosecutors more crime fighting tools to protect victims of identity fraud. Under current law, the attempt to defraud an individual by using his or her identity is not by itself a punishable offense. The Identity Piracy Act (IPA) closes this loophole, and makes the theft of one's identity a specific category of crime punishable under federal law. In order to prosecute someone for identity fraud under current law, a person must commit another type of fraud such as wire, bank, or credit card fraud. The IPA would make the act of obtaining someone's identity with the intent to defraud a person or entity a federal crime. Punishment would include up to twenty years in prison, additional time for a conspiracy to commit identity fraud, fines, and restitution. Imagine learning that someone has stolen your name and social security number and used an out-of-state address to apply for nearly 15 credit cards. Imagine that you didn't learn about the theft of your identity until the credit card company calls to check with you about $2,500 worth of charges you didn't make. Under current law, only the theft of the $2,500, and not the assumption of your identity, is punishable by federal law. The Identity Piracy Act (IPA) closes this loophole, and makes the theft of one's identity a crime. The provisions of the IPA are similar to those of the Senate Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act. However, the IPA contains language endorsed by the Secret Service that clearly defines identity fraud as a federal crime and expands penalties for this crime. Like the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (ITADA), the IPA would give law enforcement officials more crime fighting tools to protect victims of identity fraud. It would also enable victims to seek financial restitution from identity fraud thieves, and give law enforcement officials expanded authority to seize the equipment that enable thieves to steal the identities of consumers. Unlike other proposed identity fraud legislation, the IPA clearly defines the threshold that makes identity fraud a federal crime. The threshold provisions enable prosecutors to determine what actions trigger a federal identity fraud crime. The IPA eliminates the dollar threshold for making identity fraud a federal crime. Under ITADA, a person must use an individual's identity to steal at least $1,000 to make this type of fraud a federal crime. The IPA would make taking the identity of both a person or an entity, such as a corporation, a federal crime. ITADA only covers theft from a person, not an entity. The IPA refines what a court may provide in restitution to the victim of identity fraud. Under the IPA the court can provide restitution for attorney fees, to clear credit or debt history problems, and to clear debts and liens against a person. ITADA does not clearly define the restitution that can be provided. The IPA refines the punishment for conspiracy to commit identity fraud. ITADA does not clearly define the punishment for conspiracy. IPA would increase the penalty for conspiracy by half of the maximum sentence for identity fraud. The IPA creates definitions for what constitutes: a ``means of identification,'' a ``personal identifier,'' an ``identification device,'' and ``personal information or data.'' For example, use of data such as a fingerprint, a voice print, and a retina or iris image are identifiers that if used by an identity thief would be punishable under this law. Federal law enforcement officials need to be able to keep up with changes in technology that have increased the number of identity fraud cases, in order to protect victims. We need to protect the rights of consumers like my constituent, Denise, whose case involving the theft of $2,500 I described earlier. Denise has had to fight to clear her credit record of illegal charges. Since the initial theft, Denise learned that the identity thiefs obtained credit in her name to lease housing. Landlords trying to collect from their tenants in out-of-state courts have led to a credit reporting nightmare for Denise. The IPA would enable the Secret Service to pursue Denise's identity thieves. Under this bill, if these thieves are caught, they can be arrested on identity theft charges alone, their equipment for obtaining Denise's identity can be confiscated, and the courts can provide Denise the restitution she needs to clear her credit. The IPA also gives people like my constituent, Denise, the assurance that law enforcement officials will have all of the tools they need to combat identity theft. I am sure that many of my colleagues will learn about situations similar to Denise's, and I urge you to consider cosponsoring the IPA to advance this important crime fighting tool.