Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, September 13, 1997, the Durham Manufacturing Co. in Durham, CT will be celebrating its 75th anniversary. It gives me great pleasure to rise today to congratulate Durham Manufacturing on this milestone. There have been so many changes in the way companies and corporations function in the past several decades. For many Americans, company loyalty is a thing of the past and so many workers feel isolated on the job. Durham Manufacturing is an example of a small company that has not abandoned its workers in pursuit of a more profitable bottom-line. Indeed, Durham has managed to stay competitive, and even flourish, all while ensuring that employees are treated fairly. The history of Durham Manufacturing is the classic manufacturing success story of a small company, turning out a quality product and creating a niche for itself in the market. Situated in the predominantly rural town of Durham, Durham Manufacturing was established in 1922. The company specialized in the manufacture of tin coated iron cash boxes. Over the years, the company made changes in its product line to reflect the needs of the market. The products made at Durham Manufacturing expanded and the means of production varied. As the needs of the country changed, Durham adapted to meet them. During World War II, Durham was the Army's largest supplier of metal first aid boxes. After the war, Durham's focus turned toward developing proprietary product lines. Today, Durham produces a top quality line of first aid boxes, storage cabinets and bins and office products. However notable Durham Manufacturing's products are, what is more important is the feeling of family and community fostered by the company. Durham is as dedicated to its employees as it is to its customers. As a result, several members of families work together at Durham and in some cases generations of families have been employed there. This kind of company loyalty has helped keep Durham successful. As everyone gathers to celebrate the 75th anniversary, Durham is a leader in the metal packaging industry. I am very pleased to congratulate Durham on its 75th anniversary and I am hopeful that there will be many more.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. And I emphasize public education because it is critical. The gentleman made the point before, my colleague from New Jersey has made the point, we need to invest in public education and that is where we need to put our resources, because that is where we maximize and level that playing field so that all youngsters can take advantage of this opportunity. I am not denigrating or I am not putting aside private education. Believe me, they play a tremendous role. But there are, in a number of instances, resources that can be brought to bear, and what we should not do is to create a world of education and opportunity that was once before only the purview of the rich and the privileged.

Ms. DeLAURO. I just want to make the point, because all this is by way of saying no one is suggesting that we bankrupt the Federal Government to do this; that this is going to be this giant program to use Federal dollars for this. Simply spoken, it is that a small amount of money in partnership with the cities and towns and local school districts where the money is leveraged so that there is a small participation by the Federal Government that allows these projects to go forward. That seems to me to be an appropriate function for government. It is not only appropriate, I think it is what we need to do as people in public life. It needs to be our responsibility to make sure that we are providing these kinds of tools in order for the schools that can do this and that the kids can learn, and that the parents receive the benefit of this effort, as well, in terms of seeing what happens with their youngsters.

Ms. DeLAURO. That really is, I think, a critical point. I have spent a lot of time in schools and I got very, very much involved in the connecting up of schools in my district to the Internet. I worked with the business community, and a number of them sponsored the cost of the wiring, et cetera. And in fact in a number of these schools the fact was that the actual physical plant did not allow for the wiring up, and that is one set of the problems, some of which we are talking about here tonight. But just as in the past, education in this country has been the great equalizer, that is, public education has been the great equalizer, so that no matter what our station in life, no matter what our social status was, or is, that we could achieve success based on our God-given talent. Now, I think that that is what needs to be preserved in all of this. And when we talk about some places, and now that we have moved into this technological age, we have to view the opportunity for the use of the Internet and computers and the ability of the physical plants of our schools, like a Fairhaven Middle School, which is a half century old, being able to accommodate that. Because then, in fact, what we are going to do, if we are not vigilant about this and if we do not put the resources necessary into infrastructure and into making sure that we have the phone lines and the computers, then we will create a stratified society where those places that can afford to have this kind of technology and this kind of access are going to get the benefits of it, and those that cannot are going to be held back from their ability to compete, their ability to succeed in this new global economy. The vistas and the potential of the computer and the Internet of just exponentially expanding horizons and opportunities for knowledge, we have to be very careful that we do not set people back in this process but have to be really guardians of that concept of public education.

Ms. DeLAURO. I think that it is not each of the individual pieces, but it is where our values and our priorities lie as a country. I think we truly are in a defining moment about who we are and what we stand for. I do not think we can do enough in terms of the kind of commitment that we can have to these standards and values. I think it will set a tone and a direction for what the 21st century is going to be about. We talk a lot about bridges and all that, we can do it in hardware, software and so forth, but that is not the point. The point is fundamentally what kind of time and effort and resources do we commit to providing the opportunity for our youngsters, our kids, to really learn, to be able to expand their minds with what we are learning about zero to 3 and when kids start to learn. These are exciting times, I think, for us, exciting times for us to serve where we can truly make a contribution to a future generation, because so many did it for us.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I am pleased to join with him tonight and my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] for her leadership on this school construction issue. It is remarkable. It is a small amount of money that can help to leverage a lot of money in terms of the ability to use this so that municipalities can pay interest on their loans in order to get those bonds and to get those loans in order to rebuild crumbling schools in struggling urban areas. I am so pleased, I understand our colleague from North Carolina is going to join with us as well this evening, to rise, to stand up for America's middle-class families. These are families who work hard. They play by the rules. They want what every other family wants in this country, a shot at the American dream, the chance to make their kids' lives a little bit better than their own. We all know that in America it is education that can make the dream a reality. Education has truly been the key opportunity in our society. It is now more true than I think in any other time in terms of a new global economy, which we are faced with, and this kind of an economy requires up-to-date skills and lifelong learning. Our public school system desperately needs our help. Young people need to be able to attend a school in safety, without fear of violence and drugs in the hallways, or whether it is on the playgrounds and, as we have been starting to talk about tonight, America's children need to attend schools that are structurally sound and that are not crumbling around them. There was a recent report, I know my colleagues know this, a recent report by the U.S. General Accounting Office. And it found that one- third, one-third of America's schools need extensive repair. In May, just a few months ago, I visited the Fair Haven Middle School in my home town of New Haven, CT. Like so many schools around the Nation, Fair Haven was built over a half century ago. Consequently, like anything that would be a half century old, it needs repairs, and it needs an overhaul of its electrical, of its plumbing system. I walked down the corridors and the pipes are exposed. Now, I know my colleague from North Carolina was a school principal, has been engaged in the school system and knows and has watched kids on a day-to-day basis. I do not know any group of kids that walks down the center of a corridor and never hits up against the side of the walls. That is not my experience with kids. But when it is wintertime in a place like Connecticut and the heat is on, those pipes are hot. What happens? A kid comes along, his friend, kidding around, or her friend, kidding around, you give them an elbow, you nudge them, boom, into the hot pipe. You have got some kid with a burned arm. We are looking at the health and safety of our youngsters in schools. I went into the auditorium of this school. It was like a bat cave. The lighting was so poor that, in fact, they could not hold the kinds of events you hold in an auditorium because you cannot see. You just cannot see. It is not a question of turning the lights down for the performance. The lights are down. They do not go on. The heating system, the air-conditioning system, just decrepit and need to have repair. Nobody is asking for bells and whistles. We are just asking for an environmentally sound area, an environment, if you will, in which our kids can go to school. Last year in the school lunch debate, the American people acknowledged that children whose empty stomachs are growling cannot focus in school and they cannot learn. Why do we think that our kids can be in schools that are falling down around them and believe that they can succeed? As my colleague from New York, Mrs. Lowey, pointed out, there are some Republicans, some on the other side of the aisle, who have repeatedly blocked Democratic efforts to help schools find the resources that they need to repair and to rebuild. I find it almost as outrageous and unconscionable as she did. And I know my colleagues here tonight find it unconscionable that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, that the leader of the other body would specifically single out school construction as the area to apply the axe and to cut out that $5 billion, a small amount of money, which does not in fact pay for these repairs. Essentially, what should be understood, it allows for school districts, for municipalities, for States to alleviate the interest on the bonds that they have to float in order to do these kinds of repairs. It just makes good sense. I would just like to say that I have been concerned about this issue of crumbling infrastructure and I have introduced something called the National Infrastructure Development Act, introduced it in the 103d Congress. It is an innovative, creative financing mechanism that brings private dollars and public dollars together to raise capital to invest in our schools. It also is for roads and bridges and deep water ports, but one of the cornerstones is to be able to invest in our schools. It just makes good sense. That is what we ought to be about in terms of trying to meet the needs of our kids, of our schools, and particularly to alleviate the concerns and fears of the mothers and fathers who send their kids to school every day and know that they are in a safe and a healthy environment. I am really delighted to participate in this effort tonight.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, just to point this out, this $5 billion that the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] has been talking about, just for the schools in the New Haven area, they would receive $17 million, again, to help cover the interest on the loans. We are not talking about creating a wild-eyed bureaucracy. It is to meet the kinds of needs that the gentleman has identified.

Ms. DeLAURO. I find it interesting, again what I do not understand is why this program so specifically, it was almost singled out, as we know, ``Under no circumstances are we going to allow for this school construction funding.'' I do not understand it. I cannot explain it. I suppose it would be an interesting conversation to have with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I do not think it is all of them. I think it is just some. I do not know. Maybe they think that helping to pay for the interest on this stuff is too much meddling. I truly do not understand it. Or that the schools are in good shape or that we do not need it. I do not think you can go to any district whether it is an inner city or suburban school that is not facing the same kinds of problems. It is a question of degree maybe in some areas, especially, and I go back to the Fair Haven Middle School, it is a half century old versus a school that is 20, 25, 50 years old, there is a different state of repair. But I have been to schools in inner cities and in the suburbs in my district and again I say they have all of the same kinds of problems. My hope is that we are able to come to a meeting of the minds on this in a bipartisan way where we focus in on public education and in the direction of putting more of an investment in public education today, whether it is on the issue of the infrastructure which we have been talking about, the overcrowding issue which we also have been talking about. We also want to make sure that our children can read by the third grade, that they are literate. Again in today's economy, my God, they cannot survive. They will be left in the dust. The whole issue of safety in addition to safety because of the physical plant but their safety from drugs and from violence. These are critical issues that face us in public education. I am quite proud that Democrats I think have taken the lead in these areas and want to make sure that we do have a sound and a strong and a true commitment to public education in this country. It has served us well.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on October 4, 1997, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of American Local 210 will be celebrating its Diamond Anniversary and also recognizing John Cunningham who has recently retired as president of the New England District Council of Carpenters and president/general agent of Local 210. I am very pleased to rise today to congratulate Local 210 for reaching this extraordinary milestone and to offer my warmest congratulations to John on the occasion of his retirement after 41 years of leadership. John is a wonderful friend of mine and I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak about his extraordinary record of accomplishments. John has overseen a number of new programs and policies during his tenure with Local 210. All these programs demonstrate his unwavering commitment to the welfare of workers. Beginning in 1968, Local 210 kicked off the very first apprentice program in all of New England. Today, that program is based in Norwalk with 125 active trainees. John's focus has always been on helping others, not only workers but also their families. To this end, John oversaw the creation of a credit union to give members access to low-cost loans and a scholarship fund to make college money available to children of union members. However, the best example of John's exceptional commitment to members is his actions after the 1987 collapse of the L'Ambiance construction site in Bridgeport. Local 210 became the focal point of the National Building Trades Council effort to help the family members of those workers killed in the collapse. Under John's leadership, Local 210 raised more than $300,000 for the families. I am sure that many people are very grateful to John and Local 210 for spearheading this effort and for making this issue a priority for everyone. John Cunningham's lasting legacy, however, is his deeply held belief in the importance of unions and the need for organized labor. He recognizes that it is only by sticking together that labor has been able to achieve all the reforms and benefits that have made the workplace safe and secure for workers and their families. Unions are as relevant and important today as they were when workers first began to organize in this country. It is the work and commitment of leaders like John Cunningham and organizations like Local 210 that keeps us all vigilant and dedicated to the continued improvement of the lives and working conditions of laborers in this country. Again, it is my great pleasure to rise today to congratulate Local 210 on its 100th anniversary and to thank John Cunningham for 41 years of dedication and leadership.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would say there is a disconnect here with my colleague who just finished speaking. It is understood that in fact we could buy the argument that we inherited an OSHA that was a mess. But in fact, in the Contract With America, if Members might recall, their answer to that question was to cut OSHA about 50 percent. The fact of the matter is that under the Clinton administration, as my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] pointed out a minute ago, in fact, an innovative compliance assistance program, a voluntary compliance assistance program, was developed. It was begun in fact and in truth to help employers identify safety problems before the accidents occur and before inspections and fines occur. It happens, and it is a fact, that this is an enormously and hugely popular program with business owners. There is a very long waiting list of employers who want help to do the right thing. That is why the committee bill increases the compliance assistance program, as has been mentioned, by 12 percent, so in fact employers can get that kind of help and advice, and OSHA can provide that to the extent that businesses want it and need it. But quite honestly, what will happen is that compliance assistance is the part of the budget that will be cut if OSHA's budget is reduced. This is because in fact, first and foremost, OSHA has to enforce the law. So this amendment is shortsighted. It hurts workers and, in fact, hurts the businesses which my friends, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, seem to want to help. They want to help businesses. In fact, businesses are happy with these voluntary compliance programs. If we continue in this path, it will in fact cause more deaths, more injuries, and more threats to the health and safety of American consumers, like those that we saw at the Hudson Food plant. Let me just reiterate. Some Members, some Republicans of this House, seem to think that OSHA has not been cut enough over the past 3 years. But the majority of people do not want to cut it further. Clearly, the sponsors of this amendment share that belief that OSHA has not be cut enough, as do those who were engaged in the previous amendment. I disagree, and quite frankly, I think most Americans will disagree. There are some facts that I think just speak loud and clear and speak for themselves. Every 5 seconds, every 5 seconds, an American worker is injured or killed on the job. In 5 minutes while I stand here and speak, 60 people will be hurt or will die. We saw the incidents with the Hudson Food plant. Quite honestly, in that district in Missouri 155 people died of job- related injuries or illnesses in the last year for which we have data. In the State of Missouri, there are 25 inspectors to monitor the safety of places of work. That means that the average Missouri business will not be inspected more than once every 235 years. Clearly the sponsors of these amendments here think that is too often, and they want to reduce it to 250 or 275 years. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I am a supporter of the IDEA Program. Last week we were going to cut wage and hour to support IDEA, giving about 67 cents per child to the IDEA Program. Ultimately, there are only some Members of the other party that want to engage in this kind of thing. There has been a very good bipartisan effort put together here in defense of OSHA. Some people are not happy with that. People have worked very, very hard over the last several months so we would have a good bill that in fact deals with the important issues that workers are facing and that others are facing. Now, all of a sudden, we see this opportunity to filibuster this bill in order to take money from here, take it there. In fact, these are thinly veiled efforts to cut programs here where we are only talking about $2 more per child for the IDEA Program. If we want to help kids, help children, I ask my colleagues to help their families make a decent, living wage, as we were talking about last week. Give their folks the opportunity to work in a safe environment and workplace. That is the kind of thing we ought to be doing to help these families. Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. DeLAURO

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me just pick up, if I can, where my colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] left off. In terms of what this debate is actually all about and the reading of the poll data and the communications experts, front page of the Washington Post or the New York Times in the last couple of days talked about Mr. Frank Luntz, Republican consultant, who talked about communicating to the Republicans on how they should approach issues and what they ought to be saying. Sentences that work particularly well: All children deserve a chance at a quality education; your communications, direct quote, must always focus explicitly on one word, children. It is a veil, a thinly disguised veil to talk about what you want to do for children instead of what you really want to do to workers in this country. What you did not read in your poll data is that when Americans talk about cutting waste and bureaucracy, they do not mean eliminating vital protections like the Federal minimum wage and enforcing that minimum wage and enforcing family and medical leave. The Wage and Hour Division's mission is to make sure that we pass laws that regard and take into consideration basic worker pay and protections and that they are respected and carried out. Mr. Chairman, my mother is a seamstress. My mother worked in a sweatshop. She worked at earning pennies, 2 cents a collar. I went to that sweat shop when I was a kid. I watched what she did. She and other women with their backs bent over sewing machines, pumping dresses out as fast as they could so that in fact they could take care of their families. My mother and those women and those people who work there were exploited and so many others were exploited. I will tell my colleagues that today we have hard-working people out there. They are attempting to stay off of welfare, to earn a decent wage. They want to raise their kids to be productive and they want them to be contributing members of society. At a time when we have given tax breaks to the richest corporations in this country and at a time, in fact, when we have done some good about giving a tax break to parents to help them be able to keep more of their paycheck in their pockets, what we should not be doing here today is undermining their ability to earn that fair paycheck in the first place. I support IDEA. Other Members here do that. What you are doing here today is talking about essentially an increase of about 72 cents, 72 cents, less than a dollar. Who are we kidding? Do not think we are going to kid the American people. We are not kidding anybody over here on this side of the aisle.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, the agenda is clear. It is antiworker. If you were concerned about children and their families, you truly would be working to increase funds to pay for research that will cure these youngsters, to help with the schools that will educate them, to deal with job training and help them to get jobs and to be productive citizens. Yet you will cut that off. In the wage and hour, they look at Davis-Bacon. You are always complaining about Davis-Bacon and how unfair it is. What this division does is look at Davis-Bacon. It says where wages are fair and where they are not biased, but what you want to do is you want to talk out of one side of your mouth about cutting back on Davis-Bacon and yet you want to cut out the money from the Wage and Hour Division that looks at that that will make it fair. This is a direct assault on American working families. It is nothing less than that. Truly, you should be ashamed of coming to the floor with this kind of an effort. These are false choices that you are asking people to make. It is wrong to do that. We need to be protecting American working families and their children.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues what we can accomplish when we stand up and fight for what we believe in. In the last Congress, our Republican colleagues attempted to slash the school lunch program. They advocated the single biggest cuts in education in the history of the United States; they wanted to abolish the Department of Education. Democrats stood up, fought for these issues, fought for America's children and won. Now our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are attempting a new assault, fighting against Democratic initiatives to improve America's schools to set national standards for our schools. Democrats are fighting to rebuild our crumbling schools, to reduce overcrowding in our classrooms, and to establish those national standards in reading and mathematics. Let us make sure that students in Boston are held to the same high standards as students in Birmingham. A word of warning to our friends on the other side of the aisle: Once again, Democrats are going to stand up and make the fight for America's kids, and I predict that we will win.

Ms. DeLAURO

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, which I hope to be able to vote in favor at the end of this debate. I particularly want to commend Chairman Porter and our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], for the fine work and the extraordinary amount of time and effort they have put into putting this bill together and trying to deal with the numerous interests of Members, and more than that, with the issues that face this subcommittee, which face the people of this country. I am particularly pleased that it contains a substantial increase for health research at the NIH, for disease prevention work at the Centers for Disease Control, and for important educational programs, such as Head Start and IDEA. The bill is not ideal. It does not contain funds for breast and cervical cancer screening, for a program which would serve women between the ages of 40 to 50 who will become eligible for mammograms, and I truly do look forward to working with the chairman in conference to be able to raise this figure. I would have hoped to have had an opportunity and preferred additional funding for the Goals 2000 State efforts to raise the quality of education in our public schools, and am disappointed that it continues to deny poor women access to abortion services. I believe overall this is a good bill. My hope is that the bipartisan agreements will be maintained and there not be controversial changes made, those that are threatened; and my hope is that those controversial changes will not jeopardize the bill through unwise amendments. There have been several amendments which will be proposed which undermine national, State and local efforts to bring our schools up to meet the highest education standards. I hope my colleagues will join me in strenuous opposition to these amendments. The Whole School Reform initiative of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will ensure that our schools teach our children to read, write, and to do basic mathematics, giving them the tools they need to compete in a global economy. Our children will compete for jobs in a national and even a global marketplace. We must be sure that our local school systems are given the tools that they need to meet those national and global expectations. I will oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] of the title XV Family Planning Program. There is no doubt this parental notification amendment will increase teen pregnancy, teen abortion, and sexually transmitted disease. Similar amendments were defeated by bipartisan votes on the floor last year and in full committee this year. I urge my colleagues to vote against these amendments, which would undermine the fine work that was done by the chairman and the ranking member and other members of the subcommittee. What we need to have and what we need to support is a clean bipartisan bill of which we can all be proud, and which helps to meet the needs of the American people who so desperately depend on the work we do in this committee, which addresses almost every aspect of people's lives in this country.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman regarding our efforts to move people from welfare to work. I and many others fear that last year's welfare reform effort will not do enough to ensure that the goal we all share, a smooth transition into the job market for people now on welfare, would be achieved. I am glad to see that the recently concluded bipartisan budget agreement includes a welfare-to-work jobs program to help make welfare reform a success, but it will take a great deal of work and resources for the Department of Labor to design and to implement welfare-to-work so it will be in place by October 1, 1997. On July 17, 1997, the President sent to Congress a budget amount for $6.2 million for the Labor Department to administer the $3 billion welfare-to-work program. As we prepare to go to conference with the other body, it is important that these funds be provided to the Department of Labor. I appreciate the chairman's recognition in the committee report of the likelihood that these funds would be needed. Now that the budget agreement has been reached, I want to ask the gentleman if he would be willing to work with me as we go to the conference on this bill to ensure that the Labor Department has the resources it needs to administer this vital welfare-to-work effort.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Chairman's interest and efforts during the committee hearings this year. I share his commitment to making welfare reform work, and I will do everything in my power to make sure welfare-to-work is implemented successfully. I thank the chairman.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility as Members of this body to help ensure that every child in this great Nation has a shot at the American dream. Education has always been a critical part of that dream because it is education that opens the doors to opportunity in our society. It is our responsibility to make sure that every American child is taught to read, to write, to compute, and taught all the other skills necessary for them to compete in a global and in a modern economy. We need to make sure that the kids in Portland, ME are held to the same high standards as the kids in Portland, OR, and that a high school diploma earned in Albany, NY means as much as the diploma that is earned in Albany, GA. Republicans have vowed to defeat Democratic initiatives and to reform our schools and to ensure that all of America's children receive a quality education and that, in fact, we have high standards that are adhered to in this country. My Republican colleagues even want to get rid of the Department of Education. However, Democrats are united in this effort. We are going to continue to fight to improve our schools and to give every kid in this Nation a shot at the American dream.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan amendment. This debate is not about promoting abortion. Not one penny of U.S. funds can be used for abortion. This vote is a vote to prevent abortion, to improve the health of women and children, and above all, to save lives. U.S. family planning aid saves the lives of women. UNICEF says that it reduces unintended pregnancies by one-fifth. It would reduce abortions and could save the lives of as many as 120,000 women who would die in childbirth. If the Smith amendment passes, family planning and health clinics across the world will close. Women will be denied Pap smears and will suffer from cancers which could easily have been treated if caught early. Sexually transmitted diseases will go undiagnosed and untreated. More mothers, infants, and children will die. For 30 years, the United States has been an international leader in reducing the number of maternal and child deaths through its support for family planning. We need to renew this commitment. Vote to reduce abortions, vote to reduce maternal and child death. Vote to support Gilman-Pelosi.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on September 1, 1997, my good friends, Pasquale and Theresa Argento, celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. It gives me great pleasure to wish them my very warmest congratulations on this truly special occasion. I have known both Theresa and Pat for years and I am so pleased to have this opportunity to talk about how much this couple has given to their family and to the New Haven community. Theresa and Pat are lifelong residents of New Haven and met when both their families lived on Chapel Street near Wooster Square. As almost no one else I've ever known, the Argentos have carried on the Wooster Square traditions. Theresa is president of the St. Andrew's Ladies Society and cochairs the annual St. Andrew's Feast. The feast is one of my wonderful memories of friends and family. St. Andrew's keeps the strong feeling of community alive and Theresa has to be given credit for the hard work she does every year to organize it. She devotes an extraordinary amount of time and her efforts assure its success every year. Although the New Haven community is their home, Theresa and Pat have not forgotten their Italian heritage. Theresa has done amazing work with the sister cities project which sponsors exchanges with New Haven's sister city of Amalfi, Italy. Promoting the exchange of students, knowledge, and culture, Theresa has ensured that the New Haven descendants of Amalfi will not forget their roots. Because of her work, my step-son, Jonathon, will always remember his time in Amalfi. Pat and Theresa have spent a lifetime working hard for their family. Their devotion to their two wonderful children, Frances and Antoinette, and their four grandchildren, Evelyn, Robert, Alison, and Jessica, is a testament to their love for each other. It gives me great pleasure to rise today on behalf of the Argentos. I am grateful to them for all they have done for me and my family and I am proud of all their hard work on behalf of so many. I join their family and their many friends in wishing them a very happy anniversary and many more years of good health and happiness. They truly deserve it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, in the first half of 1996, the tobacco industry donated over $1 million to the Republican Party. Last month Speaker Gingrich and his Republican colleagues returned the favor. Republican Members snuck into the balanced budget bill a $50 billion credit provision for tobacco companies, my friends, not a bad return on their $1 million donation. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal reported from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids that 83 percent of the Members from the other body took tobacco money last year, and they voted against increasing funding to crack down on illegal sales of tobacco to minors. It is no wonder the American people have lost faith in their political system. It is time for Congress to ban soft money contributions to political parties and restore some integrity to our campaign finance system. Democrats are asking Speaker Gingrich to schedule a vote this month to ban soft money. The American people should not have to wait any longer. We need to take this important first step. Let us take the influence out of the hands of the wealthy and the special interests. We need to return political power in this Nation to where it rightly belongs, in the hands of average working Americans.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct conferees to fully fund the FDA's program to crack down on illegal tobacco sales to minors. I appreciate the assistance of Chairman Skeen and other members of the subcommittee in providing $24 million for this important initiative in the House bill. But I hope that in conference that we can join the Senate and provide the entire $34 million needed to stop our youngsters from taking up smoking and becoming addicted. Facts of underage tobacco use are undisputed. Every single day 3,000 young people under the age of 18 who cannot even buy tobacco legally, become regular smokers. Selling tobacco to minors is illegal in all 50 States, but studies show that children can buy tobacco 67 percent of the time. What does this teach our children? It teaches them to smoke and it also teaches them that there are no penalties for breaking the law. The FDA plan will help retailers understand and comply with the law. It enables strict enforcement by checking that stores require people who look younger than age 27 show an ID card before they buy cigarettes. It is a perfectly legitimate practice with regard to the sale of alcohol. It is an enforcement mechanism, it is an outreach mechanism, and it does not set up any, and I repeat, it does not set up any new government bureaucracy. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal reported that 83 percent of the Members of the other body who took tobacco money last year voted against fully funding this provision. I would like to think that Members of this body today will be voting on this motion based on what is best for America's children and not on what is best for their campaign coffers. Frankly, the tobacco industry has no reason to oppose this motion because this money all goes toward endorsing current law. This is no new law that is being talked about. But perhaps because 90 percent of all smokers start the habit by age 18, the tobacco companies are concerned that cracking down on youth smoking will hurt their businesses. I would be ashamed if any Member of this body voted against this resolution as payback for a campaign contribution. This motion is about saving lives. Investing a small amount in prevention today is going to yield enormous savings down the road, not only in dollars for reduced medical costs but in the lives of our young people who can be saved. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Transportation Infrastructure Credit Act of 1997. This bill will create public-private partnerships to build more highway and mass transit projects, and create tens of thousands of new jobs. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Representatives Bonior, Frost, Olver, Green, Kennedy of Rhode Island, McGovern, and Delegate Christian-Green in offering this important proposal. The House of Representatives recently voted to reject, by a vote of 214 to 216, a $12-billion, 5-year increase in funding for highway and mass transit projects above the current $125 billion budget proposal. Like many of my colleagues who supported this modest increase in transportation construction funds, I was disappointed by the House's failure to agree to these additional moneys. Our Nation needs additional capital to meet the more than $30 billion annual shortfall in funds to construct highway and mass transit projects. The Government must encourage private infrastructure investment to match overseas investments. In Asia, 10 to 15 percent of all infrastructure is privately owned. However, in the U.S., less than 1 percent of transportation infrastructure is privately owned. The Transportation Infrastructure Credit Act encourages private sector development, ownership, and financing of our Nation's infrastructure needs. This bill is needed because there is no compatible financing mechanism available for large projects that exceed $100 million. Unlike State Infrastructure Banks created by the ISTEA bill, this bill will give the U.S. Department of Transportation the capacity to make loans immediately to large State and interstate infrastructure projects. The Transportation Infrastructure Credit Act offers an innovative approach to addressing this financing shortfall. It proposes spending $500 million in Federal funds over 5 years to leverage $10 billion in private capital investments in transportation infrastructure. The legislation authorizes $100 million annually in credit incentives for 5 years. These funds would be administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation [DOT], which would offer four financing products that would attract private investments in highway and mass transit projects. Public-private partnerships created through the Transportation Infrastructure Investment Act can leverage $2 billion in actual construction for every $100 million invested by the Federal Government. Each $1 billion invested in infrastructure creates between 20,000 and 30,000 jobs. This means that the bill can create as many as 300,000 new jobs on top of those created by traditional ISTEA funding. These four financing mechanisms are particularly attractive to project sponsors interested in financing projects with dedicated, user- fee based revenue streams, such as tolls (for highways) or user fees (for mass transit). For this reason, most projects financed through this bill would be commercially owned. I would like to take a moment to explain each of the four financing mechanisms, or ``products,'' contained in this proposal that would be offered the Department of Transportation (DOT). Direct loans, the first product, would be subordinated or junior loans that would typically be used to finance about one-third of the cost of a project. The remaining two-thirds of the cost of a project would be provided by private sources (such as loans and municipal bonds). The large private interest will ensure that projects are chosen carefully. The Department of Transportation used this type of loan for the Alameda Corridor project in California. Under this bill, DOT would also offer stand-by lines of credit. DOT would provide two different forms of this type of credit: partial credit enhancement and a guarantee for the debt service on project debt. Stand-by lines of credit help investors by ensuring that debt is covered during the ramp-up period--the period during which the project is being constructed, but there is no revenue stream such as tolls to repay investors. The third product can be referred to as insured loans. DOT would be able to provide highly restricted insured loans, which are also called guaranteed loans. These insured loans would cover 100 percent of the principal and interest on the federal portion of the project debt, and only that portion of the debt. The final product DOT could offer is called development cost loans. This financial product, which is also called risk insurance or speculative loans, would absorb the preliminary costs of projects such as pre-construction costs, preliminary engineering, and environmental impact studies. Because of limitations on the use of these financial products, the risk to the Department of Transportation is limited. At the same time, use of these mechanisms allows projects to move forward with private sector construction financing. The total cost of this bill is $500 million over a 5-year period. This $100 million a year would support $2 billion in loans and project insurance each year for 5 years for a total of $10 billion. This proposal is consistent with the goals of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] reauthorization, and would increase overall highway and mass transit spending. The legislation also contains a mechanism to back the $100-million-a- year cost of the loans. By using a fraction of the unobligated balances of the Highway Trust Fund--an amount that has reached approximately $10 billion, we can support the budget authority created by this bill. States have been arguing that they should be able to put their unobligated transportation balances toward transportation projects, and this bill creates an exceptional opportunity to use these funds for building highway and mass transit projects. In light of the limited funding budgeted for the ISTEA reauthorization, this bill makes sense. It is cost effective, it builds public-private partnerships, it creates jobs, and it ensures that highway and mass transit projects are built to serve the public good. I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this important bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this tax cut proposal and to remind my Democratic colleagues that we can accomplish what we can accomplish when we stand up and fight for what we believe in. I want to say thank you to President Clinton and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] for standing firm for Democratic priorities. Just last week our Republican colleagues were on the floor of this House calling a tax cut for hard working police officers and kindergarten teachers welfare. They stood up and defended a tax bill that included only a fraction of the needed funds for children's health care coverage and they promoted a proposal which would have raised taxes on graduate students and provided nothing at all in the way of relief for college juniors and seniors. Democrats stood up. We fought for middle class Americans, and we won. Democrats fought for tax relief for all Americans who work for a living and pay taxes, even if they do not make a lot of money. Democrats fought for the full $24 billion to provide health insurance for uninsured children and Democrats fought to improve the education tax package to give every family in this Nation the chance to send their kids to college. What they did not fight for were tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.