Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about the bogus arguments of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The fact of the matter is that if you do not pay Federal taxes, income tax or a payroll tax, you are not eligible for a child tax credit in the Democratic proposal. If you do work and pay taxes, in fact you are eligible for the child tax credit. Let them not pull the wool over peoples' eyes, while they want to provide tax breaks and tax cuts to the richest 1 percent of the people in this country, those who make over $247,000. That is where the bulk of their tax break goes. What they have done is they have cut back on the child care tax credit for working families; two people in the workplace who have to be there for economic reasons, they have cut back that child care tax credit. They have cut back the education tax credit, the HOPE scholarships to allow working families to get their children to school, in an effort to provide a tax cut to the richest 1 percent of the people in this country. It is wrong and we should not let it happen.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, June 22, the town of Orange will hold a Jubilee Celebration to commemorate its 175th anniversary. I am proud to rise today to recognize the town of Orange and its people on this very special occasion. Orange has a long, rich history and its residents can look with pride on a community that has retained its traditional style and appeal. Incorporated in 1822, the town of Orange was originally composed of the parish of North Milford in Milford and the parish of West Haven in New Haven. Named for William, Prince of Orange, the community has a history which dates back to the early 1600's. Industry arrived in Orange in 1776 but, for the most part, the town remained a farming community. A great source of pride for all the residents of Orange, the Hine farm is the Nation's oldest business continuously operated by the same family. Founded in 1639 by Thomas Hine, the farm has been worked by 11 generations of the family. The farm serves as a reminder of Orange's past and is also an example of how the town of Orange will unite in support of members of the community. When the Hines lost their historic barn to fire last summer, the town rallied around the family. This is truly a heartwarming example of how a community can come together to help members who are trying to get back on their feet. Orange has a number of annual festivals and traditions which bring the community together. In addition to the yearly Memorial Day parade, there is a volunteer firemen's carnival which is not only popular with residents of Orange but also draws people from all over the region. In September, the town gathers to honor its agrarian past with the annual Orange Country Fair. The fair features traditional rural competitions and craft exhibitions. It is clear that the residents of Orange are very proud of the town's rich history. Perhaps the best indication of the community spirit in Orange is the number of families who have chosen to live there for generations. They form a close-knit, caring community of exceptional citizens with solid values. I am very pleased to recognize the town of Orange on its 175th anniversary. My very best wishes to all the residents as they celebrate this landmark occasion.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who spoke about providing tax relief to people who do not pay taxes is absolutely off the mark. The fact of the matter is that people are paying payroll taxes and the child credit applies to those FICA or payroll taxes. Let us get the story straight. Republicans have proposed a tax cut proposal; Democrats have proposed a tax cut proposal. We are for tax cuts. The issue is who benefits from the Democratic program or the Republican program? I submit to my colleagues that the Republican bill is nothing more than a windfall for the wealthiest Americans, and a Democratic alternative offers real tax relief to middle-class families. The Democratic tax package puts money straight into the pockets of average working middle-class families. The majority of the benefits from the Democratic bill go to families making less than $100,000 a year in this country. The Republicans want to provide the richest corporations in this Nation and in the world with a reduction in their tax obligation and at the same time deny to working families the opportunity to get a child care tax credit because both men and women are in the workplace. Understand the debate and the argument. It is an important one.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores the freedom to choose for military women serving overseas. It is fundamental that those who risk their lives to defend the rights of American citizens should, in fact, enjoy those same rights. Without this amendment, American women living overseas due to service in our military will be discriminated against. Their right to choose, a right which is protected by the Constitution and the Supreme Court, will be denied. This is not a question of using taxpayers' money to perform abortion. Women will pay for their abortions out of their own pockets. This is not a question requiring doctors to perform procedures with which they do not agree, because this amendment preserves the conscience clause. This is not a question of imposing a new policy. This has been the policy of this Government. This amendment ensures that women will have access to safe, sanitary medical care even when they are stationed abroad. This debate is, purely and simply, a question of a woman's right to choose. If American military women living overseas can be denied that right, what will protect the rights of American women living in this country? I urge my colleagues to support the Harman amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Jersey, and am glad to join with him this afternoon just to say that I look forward to all the opportunities that we have in the next several weeks to talk about the tax cut plan, because I think you stated it absolutely correctly. There are two tax cut plans. The Republican majority has a tax cut plan, and the Democrats have a tax cut plan. This is not a question of one or the other parties having a plan; we both concur like we did on a balanced budget agreement that in fact we ought to be able to provide tax relief, and the tax cut plan is a good opportunity for the public to take a look at who is on their side and who is on the side of working middle-class families in this country. That is what the discussion is about because, again, there are two tax cut proposals that are on the table. Just a footnote to what you were saying about the minimum wage, which is really quite extraordinary in that we pride ourselves in this country on rewarding people to work. We also passed a welfare reform bill in order to get people from welfare to work. That was the purpose of the legislation, and I think everyone concurs with that. Now to say that if you are going to work, you cannot earn the minimum wage; that is astounding and outrageous, quite frankly, when you think about trying to reward people not for something they are not doing, which was the cry in the welfare situation and why we reformed welfare, but to get people from welfare to work, let us pay people the minimum wage, an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. I mean that is what we are all about in this country. Let me go back to the tax proposal because, as my colleague from New Jersey has pointed out, the Republican tax proposal flat out, plain and simple hurts middle-class families. My colleagues from the other side of the aisle, they are going to stand in the well of this House, and they are going to talk otherwise. Let me just give you two or three facts about the Republican proposal and then two or three facts about the Democratic proposal. One, the Republican bill hurts working women by slashing the child tax credit for 6 million families. The Republican bill hurts seniors by providing only $600 million for low-income seniors to pay for rising Medicare premiums. What is necessary, and these are low-income seniors who are assisted with paying their Medicare premiums, what is required in the bipartisan balanced budget agreement. Now understand, people must understand that in a bipartisan way we said we were going to have a balanced budget agreement, and we agreed in that bill, with lots of weeks of turmoil and tribulation and going back and forth, to come to a balanced budget agreement. Within there it is said that we need $1.5 billion in order to help seniors, low-income seniors. This is nothing new. This was agreed to. The Republican majority has reneged on that agreement with regard to seniors. The Republican bill hurts working families by denying the minimum wage to those struggling to make the transition from welfare to work. The Republican bill hurts students. It provides, their bill provides, $15 billion; I repeat, $15 billion less for the education initiatives that were once again agreed to in a bipartisan way by the President and by the House and the Senate. This was agreed to. Students are hurt by providing $15 billion less in financial assistance to assist working families in getting their kids to school. Take a look at their proposal, and you take a look at who is being helped by the congressional majority's proposal: big business and the wealthy. There are two or three examples, and my colleague from New Jersey already mentioned one of them. The bill helps big business, the biggest, largest, most prosperous corporations in the country. By scaling back something called the alternative minimum tax, it scales back their tax obligation by $22 million. This tax was supposed to ensure that large corporations pay at least some income tax, but now the Republicans want to scale it back, and then they want to phase it out completely for some businesses. I might add here that this was tried in the last session of the Congress as a part of the Contract With America, the repeal of the alternative minimum tax, causing such an outcry in the country that they shelved it for a while. They now brought it back. Again a week ago there was an outcry, but what they did was they called for the repeal. There were people who said this is outrageous. Even some of the members of the Republican conference said that it was outrageous. How can we go to the floor of the House, one Member said, and defend the largest corporations in the country not paying a single dime in taxes when working families are paying taxes? So what they did was that they retreated somewhat from that, so what they are doing is they are giving them a gift, but they just scaled back somewhat on the gift that they are giving them. This is really outrageous. These are the most prosperous corporations in the country. In 1986 we said let us just put in a floor so that you will be paying taxes like everyone else, and now they want to begin to phase it out. At the same time they are telling parents, men and women who are in the workplace, that they are going to cut in half their opportunity to take a dependent child care tax credit. They are going to cut that back in half for working families today and provide the biggest corporations in this country with a windfall profit. The Republican bill helps the rich by providing tax breaks for the wealthiest of Americans. Over half of the tax benefits from this bill go to the top 5 percent of Americans, those making more than $250,000 a year. These are simply the facts. These can be looked at, and people do not have to take my word or your word or anyone else's word. They can take the documents, they can look at the commentary on the documents, and they will find that these are the simple facts about the Republican tax proposal. Let me make an additional comment in response to my colleague on the other side of the aisle [Mr. Kingston]. This morning he referred to the families who receive the earned income tax credit as being, quote, on welfare, and I have a high regard for my colleague from Georgia [Mr. Kingston]. I just want to remind him that earned income tax credit means that people are earning an income before they are allowed any kind of tax credit. Earned income; this is a tax credit for working people. My colleague from Texas [Mr. Archer] also said the other day that millions of working families call the earned income tax credit the EITC welfare program. The earned income tax credit is not welfare. It is a tax break for low-income families who work. Once again, it is a tax break for low-income families who are working. These folks are working hard, they are playing by the rules, only to be criticized as receiving welfare simply because they do not happen to make a lot of money; they are not the richest corporations in this country. My colleagues' comments speak volumes about whose side they are on in this budget debate. The Republicans are not on the side of average Americans if they consider tax relief for working families' welfare. This is clear by their willingness to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy and to big business at the expense of average working families. I just want to make one other point, and I will yield back to my colleague, because I said that there is a Democratic tax cut proposal that is on the table. It has been designed very, very carefully in order to provide working middle-class families with tax cuts and tax breaks. The Democratic tax bill provides the majority of its tax benefits to families making less than $100,000 a year. The tax bill, the tax cut package, includes $37 billion for tax credits to help students to pay for college, truly making it a reality in this country that we will have not just 12 years of universal education, but 14 years of universal education, and this is through a HOPE scholarship program. The Democratic tax bill provides relief to small businesses through capital gains that is targeted specifically to small businesses, to family-owned businesses, homeowners, to farmers, in the form of targeted capital gains and estate tax cuts. The homeowners' capital gains tax cut is in the Democratic alternative. Finally, what the Democratic bill does not do, it does not balloon the deficit in the later years. So after the first 5 years you will not see the deficit, which we have worked so hard to decrease, balloon out of sight once again, thereby defeating everything that we did since the 1993 budget that only Democrats supported in this body, which allowed for interest rates to come down and provided us with the opportunity today in order to have a balanced budget agreement and to be able to have a tax cut program. The Democratic bill does not balloon the deficit. In fact, the Democratic bill is the only proposal on the table that in fact is a balanced budget which phases balance into the next century. In this budget debate it is clear that what we have got to determine and the public has got to determine is who is on whose side. Republicans are on the side of big business and the wealthy, and it is the Democrats that can say to the average working middle-class American family that we are on your side. And quite honestly, that is where we ought to be. We ought to be with people who are trying desperately to pay their bills, scrambling every week to get those bills paid, to get their kids to school. They are worried about the cost of health care, and they are worried about their pension and their retirement security. That is where our obligation is, and I am proud to say that that is, in fact, where the Democratic tax cut proposal is. I thank my colleague for calling this special order today, and I am happy to participate with him.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, as this body begins to implement the balanced budget agreement, working middle-class Americans are asking themselves one simple question: Who is on my side? The Republicans' tax proposal makes clear who their party is looking out for: big business and the wealthy; for under the Republican bill over half the tax benefits go to the top 5 percent of Americans, those making over $250,000 a year. In addition, they are giving $22 million in new tax breaks to big business by phasing out the alternative minimum tax, which was supposed to ensure that even big corporations pay some taxes every year, the way hardworking middle Americans pay their taxes every year. But Mr. Speaker, this is wrong for these corporations to be able to limit their tax obligation. We need to provide tax relief to those families who really can use it, hardworking middle-class American families. The Democrats have proposed a tax cut package whose benefits are targeted to these families, families struggling to make ends meet, to put food on the table, with enough left over to pay for health care for their kids. We are on your side.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I think it is worth doing, and we thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, what is interesting about the Joint Committee, and I hope the chairman will stay because the Joint Committee has refused to tell us how they reached the distribution numbers, and as the Philadelphia Inquirer and other newspapers and other documents have pointed out, the costs are hidden; because, in fact, what happens in this charade, if you will, is that the first 5 years we do have people who will be selling off assets and there will be some revenue to the government, and the other half, the second 5 years, is when this deficit explodes off the chart. What I would like to do is to yield to my colleague who sits on the Committee on Ways and Means who has been part of the deliberations and can address some of these issues.

Ms. DeLAURO. I will in a moment. The Democrats have proposed an alternative tax package whose benefits are targeted to middle-class families. The message from House Democrats is that in fact we are on your side, we are on the side of families struggling to try to make ends meet. We are on the side of families who worry about paying their bills each month, putting food on the table and still having enough left over to afford health care for their kids. We are on the side of families hoping to tuck away a few of their hard-earned dollars each month for their children's education or for their own retirement. These are families who truly in fact deserve some tax relief. This is not a partisan issue, quite frankly. This is an issue in which we have an opportunity to come together as a Congress in order to provide much needed tax relief to people in this country. I think when we have the opportunity on the floor of this House to go through post- secondary education, K through 12 education, the family credit, total relief for families in this country, the death tax and capital gains taxes, that we ought to in fact opt for Main Street instead of Wall Street. I want to turn this back over to my colleague from New Jersey who controls the time in this special order.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] for his leadership on this issue and am proud to join with him, and I am hopeful that we will be joined by other Members this evening. But I think that it is important to note what my colleague was talking about and there should be a discussion about the two tax cut plans and, in fact, who benefits from each. I think it is critical to note that, while our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to try to make a case that Democrats are not providing tax cuts for working families, whether, in fact, the Democratic alternative is precisely focused in on working, middle-class families with education, with the child tax credit, with estate taxes and inheritance, or the death tax, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to talk about it, capital gains, specifically directed to working, middle-class families, to small businesses, to small farmers, to the people in this country who have been carrying on their shoulders an enormous tax burden. In addition, these are the folks who are scrambling week to week, month to month to pay their bills. I think it is fair to say that a comprehensive tax bill truly in fact says a lot about our priorities and our values, both as a Congress and as a Nation, so that in fact the public has the opportunity to look at both tax plans and to engage in the debate and determine who is on my side. They should, as that chart makes clear here, when we have a comparison of the Republican tax plan and the Democratic alternative tax plan, of who is on the side of working middle-class families in this country. If my colleagues might recall also, in the last session of the Congress, the Republicans talked about the crown jewel of the Contract With America and they do not these days talk either about crown jewels or contracts with America, but the cornerstone of that document was a $245 billion tax cut, essentially for the richest people in this country, and paid for primarily by a $270 billion cut in the Medicare program. They have come up with a new proposal which once again I think when it is laid out side by side, one can take a look to see that they are continually to be on the side of the wealthiest Americans. Under the Republican bill, over half the tax benefits go to the top 5 percent of Americans, those making over $247,000 a year. An additional quarter of the tax cuts go to families making between $75,000 and $250,000. The rest of the American people, those making less than $75,000, have to share what is left over. That is right. They have to share what is left over. Under the Republican plan, the 80 percent of the Americans at the lowest end of the income scale receive less than 20 percent of the tax benefits. I know my colleague from New Jersey concurs in this. This is simply wrong. What we need to be about is to provide tax relief to those families who could really use it, hardworking, middle-class American families. As is so often talked about in these debates, this is not my conclusion or my colleague from New Jersey's conclusion or the conclusion of the Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means who all voted for this Democratic tax cut alternative. These are not my words. I offer as evidence, if you will, of what we are talking about in determining who is on the side of the wealthiest 5 percent of this country or who is on the side of working middle-class families the Philadelphia Inquirer dated Thursday, June 12, 1997, and the headline, ``Bill Archer's gift horse: The Congressman's tax-cut plan looks good now, but in the long term, only the rich will benefit.'' ``Average Americans would be the biggest winners, say U.S. Rep. Bill Archer, under his new tax-cut plan. He's got a break out that shows three-quarters of the tax relief going to households that earn less than $75,000 a year. ``Sounds nice, but it's bogus. What he unveiled this week ought to be called the Tax Relief for the Monied Class Act.'' This is the Philadelphia Inquirer. June 11, 1997, The New York Times. ``A Favor-the-Rich Tax Plan.'' ``To finance cuts in capital gains and inheritance taxes, Mr. Archer has held tax benefits for others to a minimal level. The tax-writing committee has come up with a proposal that barely eases the strain on middle-class families while showering the rich with benefits.'' The Washington Post. ``A Bad Tax Bill Gets Worse.'' So that paper after paper after paper indicates in fact that what we have seen once again is that the focus of attention of this tax cut proposal is on the richest 5 percent of the people who live in this country, the wealthiest 5 percent, and those who are working and struggling as middle-class Americans find themselves in a situation where they are not going to get any relief. The fact of the matter is that Democrats have proposed----

Ms. DeLAURO. Just a point, because my colleague from Washington talked about, we had talked about for a number of years here, trying to provide small businesses with the opportunity for 100 percent deductibility under health care costs. In my State of Connecticut, and I am sure in Texas and in Washington State, the engine of growth has been small businesses. This was an opportunity to give relief to small businesses, which they on a party line vote, as I understand, means all the Republicans voted together against the small business deduction of 100 percent on health care costs. In addition, because when we are talking about where their bill is focused, this is one that I have the hardest time believing. We all know that in today's economy we have men and women who are in the workplace, two parents, and not because they both want to work, they have to in order to make ends meet, and that means that they have to have their children in child care. And we talk a lot about trying to make child care affordable, sliding scales, good quality care, evaluating child care because we know today that parents have to rely on child care so that they can both work. I think one of the most egregious things that happened in this bill that the Republicans have put out, it would just say to the bulk of our families in this country who have both mothers and fathers in the work force that what you get in terms of a dependent care credit on your child care you can claim credit on your taxes for your child care if you both have to work, that what they are going to do is they are going to cut that by 50 cents. They are going to cut it in half.

Ms. DeLAURO. That is right, for every dollar they get as a credit they are going to cut that in half. So you are trying to say to people: We want to try to provide you with some help. You are the folks who need it, you are struggling. At the same time they offered to eliminate taxes on the richest corporations in the country, to give them a zero tax obligation, and at the same time we are going to cut the per child tax credit for child care. It just gives you a sense of proportion.

Ms. DeLAURO. As to who is family friendly or not.

Ms. DeLAURO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman made the point that it is like the debate about a balanced budget, and where we have had agreement on both parts of the Democrats on a balanced budget. The devil is in the details. It is more than in the details, because both a budget and a tax bill reflect, as I said earlier, the values and the priorities that we hold as a Nation and where we want to try to focus our priorities, where we want to focus limited resources. No one is saying that we have, and we do not have, all of the money in the world to do everything that everyone wants. That is not the case at all. No one is suggesting that. Also, no one is suggesting that government has to do everything for people. But in fact, government should be charged with helping people with some tools that they need when they face difficulties in their lives. Tax relief is a tool to help people who are struggling to make this fight. I think there are one or two pieces where we can really see the contrast in a Democratic focus and a Republican focus. That is, Mr. Speaker, today employers can offer to employees up to about $5,200 in educational assistance which is not taxed. This is a provision that needs to get extended year by year. What the Democrats do here is they say that they will permanently extend this expired provision of the Tax Code that says it will allow employees to accept up to $5,200 in employer-provided educational assistance which is not taxed. Also what the Democratic proposal says is that this is good for graduate education as well as undergraduate education. The Republican plan only extends the provision until the end of the year, and does not include graduate education. We are about the business of trying to provide people with the educational tools that they need so that in fact they can earn a living, make a living for their family, progress, be able to pay their taxes, and be productive and contributing members of society. That is what people want to do. In the basic issue of the education assistance provided by employers, they would exclude graduate education and they will not extend this provision on a permanent basis. This is unfair to people. At the same time, they will allow for inflation on capital gains and what they call indexing in the second 5 years of this proposal, which in fact, as my colleagues have pointed out, gets us right back to a deficit which we have spent the last several years trying to dig out of. Mr. Speaker, I must say one more thing about the deficit. I think one of the biggest contributions to getting the deficit down to where it is today has been the Democratic budget of 1993, where in fact it has allowed for an economy, and I might just parenthetically add that this was a piece of legislation only supported by Democrats. There was not one Republican vote for this piece of legislation. Economists have said that this allowed for interest rates to come down, this has allowed for the opportunity for the deficit to come down, and in fact, provided the kind of an economy where we can focus our time and attention on a balanced budget agreement and where we can focus our time and attention on a tax plan which can benefit working middle-class families in this country.

Ms. DeLAURO. Shame on us.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment in the Republican tax proposal. Under this plan, the majority of the tax benefits go to the wealthiest Americans, those making over $250,000 a year; almost 58 percent of their tax breaks go to people making over $250,000 a year. I think that we ought to provide the bulk of tax relief to working, middle-class families in this country, to the families who are trying to figure out how to pay their monthly bills, put food on their table, send their kids to school, and provide for a secure retirement and be able to afford health care. These are the families who could use tax relief in this country today. Let me just say that this is simply not a Democratic issue. One of my Republican colleagues, in a television appearance with me this morning, stated that providing big tax breaks for families who make over $250,000 a year is not the right way to go. I encourage more of my Republican colleagues, speak out about the need to provide tax relief to those families who really need it: hard-working middle-class Americans.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the President asked Congress for disaster relief funding 85 days ago, nearly 3 months. American families are suffering. Why has Congress failed to provide urgently needed disaster assistance? It is because the Republican leadership chose the disaster relief bill as their vehicle to extract political concessions from the President. Newspaper accounts in the last several days have said that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], who appeared here this morning, never expected the President to sign the bill by adding the provisions. They were done in order to embarrass the President, the same Speaker who brought us two Government shutdowns. The Republican leadership has blocked $5.6 billion for disaster victims in 33 States, $1.9 billion for U.S. military operations in Bosnia and elsewhere. People are hurting and they need our help. Congressional Democrats held vigil on Tuesday night to send a simple message: We are willing to work around the clock to get the job done. I applaud those Republicans who are finally saying, enough is enough, forget the political games, let us get disaster assistance to those in this country who need it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last night House Democrats joined our colleagues from the other body in an all-night vigil to protest the majority party's failure to pass disaster relief legislation. I think the public has some idea of the incomprehensibility of my Republican colleagues' view of this piece of legislation. They just do not get it. We worked through the night to send a simple message to our Republican colleagues: Democrats are serious about disaster relief, and we are willing to work around the clock if necessary to do that to get the job done. There are thousands of families in the Midwest. They are desperately waiting for Federal assistance so that they can begin to rebuild their lives again. Families in Minnesota, the Dakotas and in over 30 States across this country are waiting for these disaster relief funds. It is a disgrace that the majority party has chosen to load the bill up with extraneous provisions. They know it. They have acknowledged it. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker, has said this is a bill to embarrass the President of the United States. This debate, these issues ought to be debated another time. Pass the disaster relief bill. Help people in the United States make their way.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it has now been 83 days since the President first asked this Congress for disaster relief legislation. Flood- stricken families in the Midwest are desperately waiting for these funds. Yet the majority has loaded up this bill with provisions the President has said that he cannot accept in an effort to embarrass him. Let me quote from today's Wall Street Journal that says Speaker Newt Gingrich has privately indicated that he never expected the President to sign the bill sent to him. Let me also mention what Republicans are privately conceding, that this is more of a rhetorical attempt to embarrass Mr. Clinton, put themselves in a better light after helping to provoke shutdowns in the last Congress. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about people's lives. There are literally tens of thousands of people unable to make basic decisions about their lives until this bill is enacted. Yet the majority refuses to send a bill without these provisions to the President. This simply is no way to run a Congress. Mr. Speaker, providing Federal assistance to the victims in times of crisis is one of the fundamental roles of the United States Congress, yet my Republican colleagues would abdicate this basic responsibility in order to score political points. I implore the majority to stop playing politics with people's lives. Send the President a clean disaster bill today.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Campbell- Greenwood-Lowey substitute to the Smith amendment. This is a commonsense measure which restates current law and will protect the lives of women and children around the world. This vote is not about supporting abortion. Under current law, not $1 of U.S. family planning funds can be used to perform--or even counsel women to obtain--abortions anywhere in the world. The substitute would retain that prohibition. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the substitute. Vote to prevent abortion. Vote to improve the health of women and children. Vote to save lives. U.S. family planning aid saves the lives of women. Around the world, 600,000 women die in childbirth every year. Access to family planning in the developing world would reduce unintended pregnancies by one- fifth, and could save the lives of as many as 120,000 of those women. U.S. family planning aid saves the lives of children. Family planning allows women--and men--to choose how many children they want and when to have them. Spacing children further apart and breast feeding them can improve a child's chance of survival by up to 20 percent in most developing countries. Evidence from across the developing world shows that increased contraceptive use reduces abortion, raises families out of poverty, and increases the life expectancy of all of the children in the family. The Smith amendment, which would halt U.S. family planning aid, condemns hundreds of thousands of women to poor health and possibly death. If we fail to pass this substitute today, family planning and health clinics across the developing world will close. For many women, these health clinics are the only source of preventative health care that can detect diseases such as cervical cancer in the early stages and save lives. By voting ``yes'' to this substitute, you vote to save the lives of women. You vote to reduce unwanted pregnancies. You vote to reduce abortions across the world. You vote to improve children's health and life expectancy. Support women's health. Support children's health. Vote ``yes'' on the Campbell-Greenwood-Lowey substitute, and vote ``no'' on the Smith amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous questions so that Congress can provide the help so needed by Americans plagued by flooding and other disasters. Congress should have approved the disaster assistance before leaving for a Memorial Day break. The bill would have provided approximately $5.6 billion in disaster assistance for victims in 33 States. It also would have provided funds to support our troops in Bosnia and those enforcing the no-fly zone in Iraq. Instead, the Republican leadership loaded down the disaster bill with controversial provisions and then went home without doing their job to help Americans in need. We had the chance before Memorial Day to pass a simple, clean bill, but the Republican leadership chose to make political points rather than help those in need. Now we are back, but instead of passing a clean disaster assistance bill, we are taking up the State Department authorization bill. I certainly support our Nation's foreign policy efforts, but I believe we ought to take care of our own people first. Let's defeat the previous question so that we can quickly pass a noncontroversial disaster assistance bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it has now been more than 2 months since the President sent disaster relief legislation to the Congress, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to dilly-dally, to delay, instead of passing this important bill. They even voted to send the Congress home for 10 days instead of working to get this emergency aid to the families who so desperately need it. Even worse, the majority has played politics with the disaster relief legislation. Last month they added a poison pill to the bill, a provision that would freeze spending on education and other important budget priorities that in fact help working families in this country. The President has stated that he cannot sign this bill if this provision is included. Yet, the majority has refused to remove it. It is time to stop playing politics with the lives of American families. It is time to help those victims who are in fact desperately waiting for disaster relief funds. It is time to pass the emergency supplemental bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the wee hours of the morning this body passed a balanced budget resolution. The plan, please understand, provides a rough blueprint. Now we get the opportunity to work out the details of this budget. As we head into the process, Democrats are going to be watching carefully to make sure that this budget gives every, every working man and woman a shot at the American dream, and the right to a quality education has always been an essential part of that dream. So, the Democrats are going to be fighting to make sure that this budget does the right thing for American families. Getting young children ready to learn with strong investments in Head Start and an early start, looking at educational standards so that American children can read and write and compute, boosting school construction and repair initiatives so our kids are not sitting in crumbling schools, and helping families to afford college and vocational training through getting tax relief, and larger Pell grants. We are going to be watching the tax relief package very closely so that the richest 1 percent of Americans are not the beneficiaries, but that in fact working Americans, small businesses and small farmers are the beneficiaries. That is where the Democrats stand, for working families.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it has now been 60 days since the President sent disaster relief legislation to the Congress. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rather play politics with the bill than move to provide needed relief for flood victims. Republicans have added a poison pill to the legislation, which in fact would ultimately reduce the levels of funding for education, for the women, infants, and children program, and for other programs that directly benefit working middle class families today. This could undermine the entire bipartisan budget agreement that we did work into the wee hours of the morning to pass. Meanwhile, the flood victims continue to wait for their disaster relief money. In addition, 360,000 women, infants, and children who receive nutrition assistance from the WIC program are at risk for losing milk, formula, and cereal. I urge my Republican colleagues, stop playing politics with the bill. Let us pass the legislation. Let the President sign it, and move quickly to get these funds to the folks who so desperately need them.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the budget resolution, but I do so with disappointment that the President and Congress have not offered a vision for this country beyond balancing the budget. Our country is faced with great challenges, but there is no evidence that this resolution aspires to setting new direction for our Nation. Balancing the budget is an important priority and this budget represents our best hope for a balanced budget. I will vote for it, but we must begin a bigger debate about our future. In order for me to continue to support this budget, the legislation to carry it out must meet several vital conditions: One, tax cuts must benefit the middle class not just the wealthiest Americans. Too many parents are struggling to provide for their families, raise their children and send them to college. The President's HOPE scholarships and education tax cuts are a critical part of investing our economic future. And if capital gains tax cuts, which benefits the rich, are made retroactive, then tax cuts for the middle class should be too. Second, tax cuts cannot explode in the outyears. As much as we all want to pay lower taxes, we must not give away breaks that we cannot afford. It is irresponsible to enact tax cuts whose costs balloon in 6 or 10 years. I will oppose any tax package which does that. Third, the budget must invest in children and in education and in our future. Whether it is educating future leaders or providing health coverage for children, building economic infrastructure, protecting our environment, domestic spending is an important investment in our Nation's future. If our budget projections are wrong and less money comes in than we anticipate, cuts should not be made solely in education, health and economic development. Tax cuts must also be reduced to help keep the budget on line to balance if our projections fall short. Under Democratic leadership, we have made important strides toward balancing the budget while protecting vital priorities. We must continue our vigilance to ensure that our hard-won progress is not undermined as we move through the budget process.