Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, Sunday's New York Times says it all. It is ``crunch time for campaign reform.'' The leader of the other body has even promised his Members a vote on campaign finance reform next month. Mr. Speaker, I ask you, where is our vote? Where is the vote in the people's House? There have been 85 campaign finance proposals introduced, but there has been not one hearing on campaign finance reform. The Republican leadership is giving us no opportunity to debate the issue on the floor of this House and no opportunity to vote on any one of these 85 proposals. The New York Times editorial goes on to say that ``There are legislators in both parties who want to preserve a system that makes money more important than the public will.'' Mr. Speaker, please prove that you value the will of the American people over your campaign coffers. Live up to the promise you made in New Hampshire over 2 years ago. Schedule a vote on campaign finance reform today.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the privileged resolution being offered this afternoon by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez]. Yesterday, I stood on the floor of this House and I listened to my colleague be verbally accosted by a former Member of this body. This former Member has pressing business pending before this House, and he should not even be allowed on this floor while the matter is being considered. This is the U.S. Congress, the people's House. This is no place for this sort of language and for this sort of behavior. If this body is to retain any integrity, we must bar all former Members from the floor when they have any matter pending before this body. The American people have lost so much faith and confidence in this body over the course of the last several years. Let us not give them another reason to lose any more.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I wanted to make one comment, because I think this voucher program, which is going to be the subject of great debate here, in his documents Frank Luntz goes so far as to admit that the American people are against the Republican voucher program, so he advises Members to call their program, a direct quote, ``opportunity scholarships.'' Opportunity scholarships. I mean, that is how far we have come here, where we are changing the nature of words to describe a way in which we want to wreck havoc on the public school system, and in fact take this money, taxpayer funds, out of public schools into private and religious schools. That is not the direction we should be going.

Ms. DeLAURO. We have to give parents the sense and the confidence that the teachers are accountable, that their kids are learning, and they have a role and a responsibility. We can do that. That has been the way of the public school system in the past. We do not have to take the resources out and, again, as I said before, make education the purview of the few and not the many. Parents want to know there are standards that are being met. They want it better for their kids. It is what everybody's parents here wanted for their kids. My dad could not speak English when he came to this country and he suffered for that, because at that time he was in a school where his classmates and teachers laughed at him because he could not speak the language and he left school. Sure, he did fine and did OK. He worked very hard so that I could get an education and I could realize my dreams. But, my God, would it not have been an easier road if we had an understanding, like we try to do today with the great diversity of our public schools, which has made it as strong as it can possibly be. That is what we need to be about. That is what the great strength of this country is about; it is diversity. That is what its schools need to foster, and make each and every piece of that effort as strong as it can possibly be, and not leave a shell where the public school system used to be. As I said, this is not a partisan issue. This is a national issue, and we need to try to come together so that we can recognize where there are things that are wrong, agree that they need to be changed, and put our mind and our resources to making the change for the betterment of our country and for our kids.

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank my colleague. I just want to say, I find that we are looking at another tool in the arsenal of some of my Republican colleagues when they are talking about education issues today. I think this is worth pointing out. The kind of new catch phrases and code words to hide some of this effort to try to, if you go back when we were talking about school lunch and we were talking about the whole variety of educational programs, the single biggest cuts in education in the history of the country were initiated in the last session of Congress by the majority. So they were unable, and thank God, really unable to succeed in that effort, mainly because the American public spoke out loud and clear. But there is kind of a new tool in this arsenal, the catch phrases and code words. I just want to call my colleagues' attention to something that was produced by Frank Luntz, who is a Republican pollster, as part of a series of materials. This one is called Education: A Smarter American. If I can just mention a couple of things here, it says ``overview.'' This was put together to present to the Republican majority as a communications tool, how to talk about specific issues, not what to do about them but how to talk about the issue. Education: A Smarter America. Overview. ``We have been able to isolate specific words, sentences and ideas that may help Republicans sell their education legislation and undercut the President.'' I mean, that is the first item of this document. If I can give you some examples, what Luntz is trying to do is teach people, as I said, how to talk about destroying America's public schools in a way that makes it sound as if they are doing the opposite. Again, as I say, a few examples. He recommends that Members, ``talk about children in almost every sentence.'' If you listen closely to the debate on this floor, you can hear it loud and clear. Yet when it comes to putting money where their mouth is, sometimes the majority is leaving America's kids out in the cold. As I pointed out before, it was the Republican majority, and this is not all, believe me, this is not everyone, because there are reasonable people on the other side of the aisle who in fact do believe that we need to foster a good, solid and strong education system. They try to eliminate the Department of Education. They insist that the bipartisan budget agreement not include any money for school construction, and they have been pushing a voucher program that my colleague from New Jersey mentioned before that would siphon off needed funds for public schools. I think one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle brought up a New York situation with regard to the voucher program and said well, you know there has been a commitment to assist 1,000 youngsters in being able to go to the school of their choice. I applaud that effort. I do. I think that is a good thing. But that is 1,000 youngsters. We have hundreds of thousands of youngsters. If we begin to pull out money and resources from the public school system to only help a few, we then go back to what we dealt with years and years ago, which is education is the purview of the privileged and of the few, that is not what it is about. It is what public education has stood for, is to be there for everyone to take and get that opportunity that my colleague from North Carolina talked about before.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I am delighted to once again join this discussion about education. I think we can approach the situation from a couple of points of view. I think everybody has acknowledged that we know and we understand that there are difficulties in the public school system. But we can approach it in two ways. We can say, OK, we are going to end this, move on to something else; or we can say, OK, this has been a provider of excellence in the past. It has, as my colleague from New Jersey pointed out, been truly the great equalizer in education for youngsters from every walk of life, from every social strata, from every economic strata, and the opportunity for people to succeed according to their God-given talent. It has proven its mettle and its worth in those areas in the past. That is something that we should applaud, and we ought to say, where are the difficulties, and how can we make this a better system, and how can we change what patterns there are here that are helping to bring down the system? That is, I think what we are suggesting that it is fundamentally a good system, and that what we need to be doing is focusing in on how to make it a better place to be. I find it just strange when we do have so many people on the other side of the aisle who will say that the system is bad, that it is not producing youngsters who can read or write, that it is a dangerous place, their schools are dangerous places to be, that they are not being run properly, and, therefore, one change that could be made, which was the amendment that was offered today by some of our friends on the other side of the aisle which was to take billions of dollars from the Department of Education and giving it to, in fact, the places that are responsible for a poorly run system. The Federal Government is only about 6 or 7 percent of the Federal budget that is engaged in the public school system. It is a small amount of money. The Federal Government is not running the education system in the United States. In fact, most of the emphasis is in States with local school boards. Yet there are people here who would like to talk about how bad the institution is on the one hand and yet want to take the billions of dollars from the Federal Government and send it to those who would continue a failing system. It seems wrongheaded, which seems to me to be, as I said, crazy. Parents today want to make sure that their kids have the best possible education, that there are standards, particularly because parents are not home after school every single day in the way that that used to be the case. They just cannot be. It is economically not feasible. I used to volunteer my time at the community school in my neighborhood. I had one of the best experiences of my life. I used to teach at that time. I used to go from school to school and teach calligraphy as an afterschool program, a writing program. No one would believe that today, but I was a volunteer in the public school system. I was a substitute schoolteacher in the public school system. I watched community schools, which we took money away from years ago, I watched them open at 7 o'clock in the morning, close at 9 or 10 o'clock at night, and see youngsters and middle school kids and high school kids playing basketball, grandmothers coming in for a program, parents coming in for programs, and this was in an inner city, in the city of New Haven. But we ended that. We did not think that that was such a hot idea. Now we have got, as I said, mothers and fathers and aunts and uncles in the workplace, and we do not have community schools where kids can go to. Instead of focusing our time and our effort and our resources at making this existing system a better place, we are spending our time denigrating it and trying to put an end to it. There has been an attempt by some on the other side of the aisle to try to eliminate the Department of Education. I think the American people spoke loud and clear about that, and they said no. I think that we are seeing trying not to go at decimating the Department of Education in one fell swoop, but looking at it piece by piece. As I mentioned the amendment today, which, thank God, was ultimately withdrawn, that amendment would have eliminated Federal initiatives that do work, safe and drug-free schools, school-to-work program, and a whole variety of other programs that are working.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which will end the prohibition of abortion coverage for American women, coverage under the FEHB health plan. It seems that every time we turn around we see that some on the other side of the aisle would like to draw back the line of a woman's right to choose. This is a constitutional right to choose. This is a choice and decision that should be made by a woman, her family, in consultation with her clergy, and with her doctor. No matter what income level, no matter where she lives or what she does for a living, every woman has a right to make this decision on her own. We have no right to take that decision away. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Let us stop discriminating against government workers.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating it. Our children will compete for jobs in a national, and even global, marketplace. We know our workers, and our economy, can be the best in the world--if we also have a world-class education system. Our schools are not living up to our expectations. Too many schools are overcrowded and crumbling. Too many schools aren't safe, and aren't teaching kids the skills they need to learn. We have failed to hold our schools and our students accountable to the highest standards. If you believe, as I do, that as a nation we have failed to hold schools accountable, you should be very wary of an amendment which would make it virtually impossible to ever hold them accountable. And that's precisely what this amendment would do. We need to hold our schools more accountable, not less. We need to demand higher performance and higher standards. And we need to target poor performing schools in resource-poor areas and give them the funds they need to succeed. In fact, this amendment goes contrary to everything which Republicans and Democrats on this subcommittee and on the Education and the Workforce Committee have been trying to do in reforming the title I and Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs. Where we have attempted to target funds to where they are most needed, this amendment would spread them around to schools whether they are needed or not. Where the two committees have moved to tie funding to efforts to improve standards and promote better academic achievement, this amendment would spread funds around to schools whether they are taking steps to improve or not. Where the two committees have moved to tie funding to schoolwide programs rather than scattershot fixes that research shows don't work, this amendment would spread funds around to schools whether they are reforming their practices or not. I agree with my colleague that we have serious problems in many schools. I agree with my colleague that dramatic improvements are needed. But I disagree that a knee-jerk effort to block grant funds to the State and local level, with no accountability, is the solution. I urge my colleagues to demand accountability for high standards from our public schools. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the desk.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the last Congress my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to close down the Department of Education. The American people said no. Democrats in this House said no. But having failed to shut down the department in one fell swoop, my Republican colleagues are now trying to shut down the Department of Education office by office. Today, we will vote on an amendment that would take billions of dollars away from the Department of Education. Let me tell my colleagues what this amendment would eliminate, initiatives that have proven to work: Safe and drug-free schools. The school-to-work program. Educational technology challenge grants. Goals 2000. These are programs that are working in our schools today. Instead of targeting funds to where they are needed most, this amendment would spread them around to schools whether they are needed or not. Democrats in this House are standing up for America's children, fighting the Republican assault on this Nation's commitment to education. Reject the Hoekstra amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment to repeal the tobacco tax giveaway. For years, the tobacco industry has denied the truth--that smoking kills. Its ads have made smoking appear glamorous and cool, and they have blatantly targeted children with characters such as the omnipresent Joe Camel. But the truth isn't as comforting as tobacco commercials would have you believe. The truth is, every day 3,000 people under the age of 18 become regular smokers. The truth is, one out of every three of these kids will die of a tobacco-related illness like cancer or heart disease. The truth is, cigarettes kill more Americans than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, murders, suicides, illegal drugs, and fires combined. The way the tobacco industry targets children is a crime. And now that we are at the brink of a settlement that will force the industry to pay for its crime, a $50 billion tax giveaway for big tobacco is snuck into the tax bill in the dead of night. We don't know who put it there. No one will stand up to take responsibility. It truly boggles the mind. This is not an industry that markets games or toys. We are talking about an industry that markets a product which is proven to cause cancer, heart disease, and lung disease. It has tacitly admitted to targeting children by retiring characters such as Joe Camel. And last month, the head of Philip Morris admitted in a court of law that 100,000 Americans might have died from smoking- related illnesses. That same day, another story ran where the Speaker of this House defended this tax giveaway as fair. My friends, we shouldn't even be here today debating this amendment. In 1993 alone, taxpayers spent over $50 billion in health care costs to care for people who were stricken by cancer and other diseases caused by tobacco. We should be ashamed of ourselves for even considering helping the tobacco industry to pay for its mistakes. The tobacco industry does not deserve to be bailed out by taxpayer dollars. I urge every member of this House to support this amendment to repeal the tax giveaway. [From the Washington Post, Aug. 22, 1997] Smoking May Have Killed Thousands, CEO Agrees West Palm Beach, FL.--About 100,000 Americans ``might have'' died from smoking-related diseases, the head of Philip Morris Cos. Inc. conceded today to state lawyers suing his company. Geoffrey C. Bible, chairman and chief executive officer of the nation's largest cigarette maker, made the admission at the end of nearly two hours of questioning in preparation for trial of a lawsuit. Ron Motley, a lawyer representing the state, called Bible's statement a major breakthrough because except for one maverick, other industry leaders have not made such a concession. Bennett S. LeBow, chief executive officer of the smallest of the major cigarette makers, Liggett Group, Inc., has said that cigarettes kill and are addictive. Members of Congress are pressing the tobacco industry for admissions before they consider approving a $368 billion settlement that would wipe out most lawsuits against the industry. Florida was the first of 40 states suing the major tobacco companies to bring a case to trial. It seeks $12.3 billion for the public cost of smoking related illnesses. Jury selection began Aug. 1 and continues during the taking of depositions. Motley asked Bible: ``Would Philip Morris agree that a single American citizen who smokes their products for 30 or more years, a single one, has ever died of a disease caused in part by smoking cigarettes?'' Bible answered, ``I think there's a fair change that one would have, might have.'' Motley followed up, ``How about a thousand?'' Bible said, ``Might have.'' Motley pressed, ``How about 100,000?'' Bible responded, ``Might have.'' ``I salute Philip Morris for the first time in 40 years being forthright and candid,'' Motley said on CNN afterward. ``It's a very public, health-spirited way of looking at things.'' Responding to allegations that cigarette makers manipulate nicotine levels in cigarettes to capitalize on its addictive qualities, Bible said, ``I wouldn't even let them discuss adding nicotine, let alone adding nicotine to attract children.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment to my colleague who just spoke, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood], that in fact 81 percent of the students in Georgia meet the minimum acceptable standards that are in Georgia. However, only 16 percent meet the minimum acceptable standards in any national testing of the same students. I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would unnecessarily delay the development and the implementation of national reading and math tests, and I hope my colleagues will join me in defeating it. Our children will compete for jobs in the national and even in a global marketplace. We know our workers, our products, and our economy can be the very, very best in the world, and we need to do everything in our power to ensure our schools are giving our kids the tools they need to compete in the economy of the 21st century. We must not reject this important tool to ensure that every child can read, write, and do basic mathematics. Parents across the country share my belief that these are the very minimum standards to which our students and, more importantly, our schools should be held accountable. My colleagues who support this amendment argue that there are plenty of other tests and measures of school achievement. I would point out that in Wisconsin and in Louisiana, according to State tests, more than 80 percent of students are meeting acceptable competency levels. However, when Wisconsin and Louisiana students take national tests, fewer than 40 percent meet minimum standards. The same thing about what I just talked about with regard to Georgia students. Our parents deserve an objective, reliable measure of how their children are doing in school, how well the schools are preparing their children. All of us as taxpayers deserve objective, reliable information to hold schools accountable. We need to be sure that our local school systems are meeting our national expectations. I understand some of my colleagues have legitimate concerns about how the tests will be implemented, what it may mean for students who are low income or disadvantaged, whose achievement levels are traditionally lower than their more advantaged peers. I believe the concerns are valid and need to be addressed. Four million children should not be left out of this process. Those who would argue that we know what the problems are and yet we do not want to commit the funding, they are right. We have seen in this body in the last 2 or 3 years people who would like to cut the education budget more than any cuts in the history of the United States. We must identify the problems and provide the resources necessary. I do not believe we should hold up the development of this initiative, which cannot be implemented for at least another year, even if we start working on the tests now. I know with the support for the whole school reform initiative that was included in this bill, with the renewed commitment to helping every American student achieve, all of our students in all of our schools can make the grade. In the Third District of Connecticut, people sometimes wonder why Washington is so slow to address the real problems faced by families struggling to raise their kids to be responsible, productive adults and citizens. They wonder why the House would vote to delay this important tool another 1 year, 2 years, or until the Congress holds hearings and debates. My colleagues, let us remember that we are talking about taking a test to be sure that fourth graders can read and eighth graders can do mathematics. It is no more, no less than that. This debate is not about nationalized control of education. States will not be penalized for choosing not to administer the tests. This debate is not about taking power away from parents or from school boards. In fact, it will empower parents and school boards to hold schools accountable. The author of this amendment shared this view just a few short years ago when it was his proposal to have standardized testing. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] was an original cosponsor of the Bush administration's central education initiative, America 2000 Excellence in Education Act. Included in this bill were voluntary national testing for 4th, 8th and 12th graders. The gentleman from Pennsylvania also introduced an amendment to establish a process in support of voluntary national education standards and a national system of examinations. It was a good idea then, and it is a good idea now. I urge my colleagues to demonstrate that we are serious about educating our children, serious about holding our schools to the highest possible standards. Let us give parents the tools that they need to hold our schools accountable. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns expressed by the proponents of this amendment. The issue makes me uncomfortable, but it saves lives and it reduces drug use. The experience of my hometown, New Haven, CT, has had me look very hard and clear at the facts. The needle exchange program in New Haven was created in 1991. A recent Yale University study talked about the effects of the program. Let me let the Members know about this. The program reduced sharing of needles by drug abusers from 71 percent to 15 percent of people who shared. It reduced the spread of HIV by 33 percent. It helped 350 people each year get off drugs and get their lives turned around. The New Haven Police Department indicates that this caused no increase in the number of drug-related problems during the time the program was in effect. In the State of Connecticut, 53 percent of our AIDS cases are in drug users. Most children with AIDS in Connecticut had a parent who was a drug user. Stopping needle sharing saves lives, especially those of innocent children.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, immediately after the Republican revolution, Speaker Gingrich told the American people that he would never permit a bill to come to the floor with funding for public television. What happened? Quite frankly, the Speaker failed, but the American public spoke out. People who had never written to their Members of Congress before, had never telephoned their Members of Congress before, started writing and calling in droves. Piles of letters started building up in congressional offices, literally feet deep, defending public broadcasting. Parents whose children had grown up with Ernie and Bert and Big Bird and Grover and with Snuffleupagus; parents who preferred their children to be learning gentle lessons of life from Mr. Rogers and Barney, rather than ``Cops'' or soap operas; men and women of all income levels who watch Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser or ``Mystery'' or ``This Old House''; men and women of all income levels whose drives to work are made more tolerable by National Public Radio. Public television reaches 90 percent of American households. The American public does not view the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as waste, fraud, and abuse. Public broadcasting's children's programming helps prepare our kids for school, teaching them about the world around them. It teaches the ABC's, the 1-2-3's, and it teaches about neighborhoods and sharing and right and wrong. It provides instructional broadcasting for elementary school kids, with shows that teach about geography, such as ``Where in the World Is Carmen San Diego''; and teaches about science, such as ``Dan, Dan the Science Man''. Four out of five teachers in this country used television in their classroom during the 1990 and 1991 school year, serving close to 24 million students. Three of the five most used programs cited by teachers and 6 of the top 10 were initially broadcast by public television. Public television stations air nearly 1,900 hours of children's programming every single year. Almost 50 percent of the television programs for children which are aired each year is funded by CPB, quality, noncommercial, nonviolent television. If we ask any mother whether she would rather her children watch Mr. Rogers or cartoons interspersed with advertising for toys and sugar cereals, is there any doubt in anyone's mind which she would choose? More than three-quarters of the country's public television stations offer for-credit adult courses at various levels, in addition to instructional videos for teachers and classroom use and informal educational television that millions of adults watch at home on any given night. None of this would be possible without public funding. Federal funding represents a small percentage of public broadcasting's income, about 15 percent, but it is a stable source which makes it possible for public broadcasting to leverage other private funds. For every $1 of Federal funding, public broadcasting raises more than $5 from other sources, and by law, 89 percent of the Federal funds allocated to CPB go directly to communities. Public television cannot raise all of the funds it needs to operate public television stations. While the license holders of characters like Barney make a profit off of the sales of Barney stuffed animals, for example, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and public broadcasting stations do not benefit from those sales because they do not own the rights to those characters. The appropriation in this bill is still $62 million below what it was when the Republican majority took control of the Congress, and it is still below the President's request of $325 million. The Federal investment represents only $1 per taxpayer. Is $1 too much to ask for the television station which has educated so many of us, our children and our grandchildren? My colleagues, this amendment tries to do what Speaker Gingrich could not do, and that is to eliminate the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel], who has been a champion of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. Price].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would just conclude on this amendment that I think it does not take us in the right direction. We ought to continue the effort. What we should not be willing to do is to eliminate public broadcasting, which in fact has helped to educate a generation of Americans. We ought to continue this program for the good of this country.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, there are certain ideas that are quintessentially American: Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; the notion that every American child, rich, poor, boy or girl, every American child is entitled to a public education. It is one of the things that makes this Nation great. So, frankly, I have been dismayed and, quite frankly, disgusted by the assault on public education being waged by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, quite frankly, I could not believe my ears when I heard the gentleman from Colorado refer to public education as ``a monopoly,'' ``government-owned schools,'' and even making reference to public education and public schools in this country as part of a ``communist legacy.'' Mr. Speaker, they should be ashamed. Access to public education is one of the most precious and fundamental privileges of American life. It is irresponsible, it is simply wrong to imply that America's public schools are ``Communist.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to stop their efforts to not only defund but, in fact, to degrade American public schools and American public education. It has been the great equalizer in this great Nation of ours.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the agreement, and thank the ranking member and the chairman for really putting forth this incredibly wise decision in terms of comprehensive school reform. Parents and students know that the key to a good job is a good education. We know our schools need to be held to the highest educational standards. We know that years of educational reform have produced mixed results. We do not know all that we need to do to bring our schools up to scratch, but we know what does not work. That is trying to fix one classroom, one course and one group of kids at a time. We know what we need is school-wide comprehensive reform. That is why these funds are needed, to give struggling schools an opportunity to learn about and implement school-wide models which can bring school levels up all over, and achievement levels up all over the country. I am very proud of the Comer model of schools. Jim Comer is from my district. Jim Comer produced and developed the school-wide model that is being used not just in New Haven, CT, but in schools in 25 States across the country, and in other countries around the world. It has proved particularly effective for schools with higher than average numbers of disadvantaged and poor-performing students. The New Haven schools are reaffirming their commitment to the Comer model. With only 16 schools in the district participating in the Comer renewal so far, scores on the Connecticut master test have risen district-wide between 3 and 16 percent. Participating schools scored 300 percent higher in measures of school climate improvement, including school safety, than nonparticipating schools. Just last week Yale University announced the findings of a study of schools which have participated in the Comer renewal from 1992 to 1996. Researchers found significant improvement in students' attitudes toward school and a sense of safety on campus. Teens in Comer renewal schools showed improvements in race relations, reduced violence, declines in drug use, and less high-risk sexual activity. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues on this side and the other side of the aisle, I would love to have them come to New Haven, CT, to visit the Comer schools. I have sat in the planning and management meetings, I have sat with the parent teams, I have sat with the staff support and the mental health teams as they go about trying to create overall comprehensive reform and to turn the climate of these schools around. If we provide $200 million for scholarships all over the country, that is a good and noble cause. In fact, it has an effect on an individual child. It does not get at what we must do in fact to do something about public education in this country, make it what it has been in the past. This model is not only working in New Haven, CT. Prince Georges County, MD, is represented by my colleagues, the gentlemen from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Wynn, where they have implemented the Comer model there, which has tripled the number of students scoring satisfactory or excellent on State exams in the last 3 years. It has brought dramatic decreases in attendance and discipline problems. Mr. Chairman, this model may not work for all schools, but all schools should have the opportunity to learn about it and to decide if it in fact is right for their community. That is what the opportunity is in these funds. It is our responsibility to help ensure that every child in this Nation has a shot at the American dream. I compliment my colleagues, and I compliment the chairman and the ranking member.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, what are government-owned schools? Public education. And public education in this great Nation of ours has always been the great equalizer, for it is in fact public education that affords the child of a garment worker, like myself, the same opportunities as the children of university professors, political figures, and business leaders. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would work as hard as they can to see the destruction of public education in this country. Today on this floor they will propose to cut Goals 2000, cut Whole School Reform, cut Safe and Drug Free Schools, vital initiatives that in fact, yes, have proven to work. That is why Democrats are fighting against these Republican efforts. These initiatives help to make our schools safer. They get parents more involved in education. They help school districts to buy new textbooks and train teachers, and they help our students to meet the high standards to ensure that they are learning the basics in reading and mathematics and writing. Mr. Speaker, that is the direction that we should be going in. I urge my colleagues to support and strengthen fundamental school reform and support our public education system.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by making my position clear. I think that parents should be involved in their children's lives and in their decisions. The Castle-Porter substitute ensures that clinics encourage teens to discuss these decisions with their parents, and I support that language. I urge my colleagues to examine the Istook amendment, a misleading amendment. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] claims his amendment requires parental notification but not consent. He claims that under his amendment teens will have the same access to testing for sexually transmitted disease that they do now. But the facts show that he is wrong. Despite protestations, the Istook-Manzullo amendment is a parental consent amendment. The bill requires parental notification in writing 5 days before a teen can return to a clinic and receive birth control. This is, in effect if not in name, a parental consent amendment. If teens think their parents will be told, they will not come to the clinic in the first place. This amendment will scare teens away from getting the contraceptives that they need to avoid pregnancy. Medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, make no distinction between parental notification and consent. In fact, they oppose both. They point out that if parental notification or consent is required that the youngsters will not go to the clinics. Those are not my words, this is the American Medical Association. Teens are screened for sexually transmitted diseases, many of which have no obvious early symptoms, especially for women, only after they go to a clinic for birth control. They do not go to clinics to be screened for sexually transmitted diseases, they go for contraceptives and are then persuaded to be tested. By the way, it is important to know that State law requires that the knowledge or incidence of rape that may be reported in that State clinic must be reported by the clinic. State law determines that. That is why all six living Surgeons General, those who served under Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, oppose parental consent. In 1994, the six Surgeons General wrote in opposition to a Helms parental consent amendment: ``We support the efforts of public health professionals and health care providers to encourage minors to involve their families in all aspects of health education and health services. We would strongly oppose a Federal mandate that requires parental consent as a condition of receiving Federal funds.'' In fact, the amendment is even more far-reaching. Lawyers for the American Hospital Association and the American Public Hospital Association who have reviewed the text of the amendment have pointed out that the parental consent requirement applies not just to title X funds but to all funds used to provide contraceptives, including State and privately raised funds. If a hospital or clinic fails to abide by the parental consent requirements, it would forfeit all Federal funds which it might be receiving, including Medicaid, breast and cervical cancer screening funds, et cetera. But in 24 States, it is a violation of State law to require a parent, guardian or judge to consent to contraceptives for a minor, in 24 States. Therefore, hospitals must violate State law or run the risk of losing all of their Federal funds, even those which care for seniors, the disabled and others who, in fact, have nothing to do with family planning. Let me be clear once again, I support parents' rights to guide their children. The Istook amendment will undermine that objective. As the six Surgeons General wrote, ``there are data showing that adolescents will forgo counseling, education, and services if parental consent is required. A policy of this nature would sharply reduce the hope of reaching those teenagers who are most at risk and reduce the ability of health professionals to encourage family involvement or assist adolescents in taking responsible action.'' Whether we call it parental consent or whether we call it parental notification, the Istook-Manzullo amendment will, in fact, increase teen pregnancy, teen abortion, and sexually transmitted disease. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Castle substitute and to oppose the Istook-Manzullo amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on September 25, the New Haven Colony Historical Society will present Dr. Julia McNamara with the prestigious Seal of the City Award. Julia McNamara is the president of Albertus Magnus College in New Haven. I am very pleased to rise today to recognize Julia's distinguished work on behalf of the city of New Haven and to congratulate her on this honor. Since 1992, the Seal of the City is awarded annually, in the words of the historical society, ``to the person or institution whose activities or ideas have significantly added to the quality of life, the prosperity, or the general improvement of the region.'' I cannot think of a more deserving recipient than Julia McNamara. Julia has been president of Albertus Magnus for 15 years and her tenure there has seen some extraordinary changes. Julia presided over the transition to a coeducational facility, and oversaw the initiation of the popular accelerated degree program. The accelerated degree program has allowed many working individuals to pursue degrees that would otherwise remain inaccessible. This program compliments Julia's deep commitment to education and the liberal arts. Those who know Julia have an easy time describing both her demeanor and values. Dynamic and energetic, Julia is an engaging presence. Students and co-workers hold her in high esteem and consider her down- to-earth and, at the same time, inspirational. Many students at Albertus Magnus consider her an outstanding role-model. She is constantly encouraging students to embrace all that life has to offer, to question their beliefs and to never stop pursuing knowledge. Julia firmly believes that learning does not end outside the classroom and her deeply held belief that we are all responsible to every member of the community is evident in the community service she undertakes. Julia's involvement in the community is an inspiration for many. She has served on a number of boards and made history in New Haven by becoming the first woman to serve on the Committee of the Proprietors of the Common and Undivided Lands, which oversees the use of the New Haven Green. She has served on the board of trustees for Yale-New Haven Hospital, on the board of directors for the 1995 Special Olympics World Games and is a member of the fundraising committee for the Greater New Haven Vision Project. Again, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the extraordinary contributions of Julia McNamara to the people and the city of New Haven. Congratulations to her.