Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join nearly 60 of my colleagues to introduce the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom bill. This important measure will help to preserve historic stops on the Underground Railroad throughout the country so that we can remember and celebrate the courage of those who used the Underground Railroad in search of freedom from tyranny and oppression. Slavery is not an easy chapter in our Nation's history to remember. But it should not be forgotten. And the Underground Railroad is especially important to remember and memorialize, because it helps us all to deal with this dark chapter in American history when men and women fought against the institution of slavery to further the cause of freedom, even at their own peril. There are African-American churches in my hometown of New Haven, CT, such as the Varick AME Episcopal Church and the Dixwell Avenue Unitarian Church of Christ, that were waystations for escaped slaves traveling through the Underground Railroad. Many slaves passed through New Haven as they traveled toward freedom in more northern points such as Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Canada. But many children growing up in New Haven today do not know of the role their town played in this chapter of our history. In particular, New Haven was thrust into the center of the dispute between the forces supporting slavery and those working for freedom when the sailing ship Amistad arrived in the Long Island Sound in the summer of 1839. The Amistad was a slave ship that set sail from Havana, Cuba, on June 28, 1839, with 53 Africans who had been kidnapped from their homeland and were on their way to another Cuban port and a lifetime of slavery. These brave Africans, led by Sengbe Pieh, fought for their lives and freedom. They took control of the ship and forced its Spanish owners to sail toward Africa, using the sun as their compass. However, the Spaniards sailed northward at night, hoping to come ashore in a Southern slave State. Instead, the ship entered the waters of the Long Island Sound and was taken into custody by the U.S. Navy. The Africans were put in a New Haven jail while a court battle was waged to determine if they would be slaves or free men and women. This dispute forced the country to consider the moral, social, religious, and political questions surrounding slavery. Many members of the New Haven community pulled together to work to secure the Africans' freedom, including the congregation of the Center Church on Temple Street and students and faculty at the Yale University Divinity School. Finally, in February 1841 the Africans--who were defended by former President John Quincy Adams--were declared free by the U.S. Supreme Court. In March 1841 the Africans of the Amistad moved to live in Farmington, CT, while funds were raised to finance their return to the area that is now Sierra Leone in Africa. The 37 surviving Africans finally reached their homeland in January 1842. There are several memorials in New Haven commemorating the Amistad and the story of the brave Africans who fought for their liberty on its decks. A statute of Sengbe Pieh, who is also known as Joseph Cinque, sits in front of the city hall. Plans are underway for a life-size working replica of the ship to be docked on long wharf, with exhibitions and programs on African-American history and the long fight for true freedom. I am glad to see this important part of Connecticut's history recognized. I am so proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill which will ensure that the monuments of the Underground Railroad's route in Connecticut and throughout the country will be protected and preserved so that future generations can remember this remarkable time in our history.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today House Democrats sent a letter to the Republican chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means in support of middle class families. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has announced that the proposed capital gains tax cuts contained in the budget agreement will be effective no later than May 7, 1997, even though there is no tax cut plan yet. This would allow investors to be able to think ahead as to how they might deal with their further investments. Over 100 Democrats are going to ask the gentleman from Texas today to show the same consideration to the President's education tax cuts. The majority of the benefits from the Republicans' proposed capital gains tax cut will go to the richest 1 percent of the population. Democrats are standing up for the folks who are not making the 6-figure incomes, the families who could use some tax relief. Let us help working families make the decisions about whether or not their kids can go to college. House Democrats are going to stand up to make sure that the deal includes a budget that is balanced in a way that is consistent with our priorities and our values as a Nation, and that includes showing, at the very least, the same consideration to working families as we show the richest of Americans.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this is not a liberal issue. This is not a conservative issue. This is an issue of values. Who are we and what do we stand for in the United States of America? We are talking about cereal, we are talking about milk, and we are talking about formula, and we are talking about pregnant women and children. What the Kaptur-Roukema amendment does is to provide necessary funding to prevent 180,000 women, infants, and children from being kicked out of the WIC Program. These numbers are not administration numbers, they are not Democratic numbers, these are numbers that come from the States. The process of seeing people thrown off of this program has already begun in States like Arizona and Nebraska. In the last several weeks, Members have taken the case for WIC to the American people. We have explained that WIC is a program that works, that it saves the Federal Government $3 for every dollar that it has invested, and that it provides assistance to those in our society that need it the most: Pregnant women and young children. I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for joining. Support Kaptur- Roukema. Let us not gamble with our children's lives.

Ms. DELAURO

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Today House Democrats should be extremely flattered by the Republican action on today's supplemental appropriations bill. A few weeks ago the Republican majority on the Committee on Appropriations voted down a Democratic amendment to provide $76 million needed for the Women, Infants and Children Program. And in the weeks since, Democrats have been speaking out to the press, on the floor, and back home in their districts about the need to restore the funding for this program. We have explained that WIC is a program that works; that WIC saves the Federal Government money; that WIC provides assistance to those in our society that need it, pregnant women and young children; and that WIC reflects the best values of this country of ours. I am happy today that Republicans have finally come around to our way of thinking, for they have now voted to include the very funding their colleagues voted down only a few short weeks ago, and I am glad to see that they have decided to follow our lead. Now, 180,000 women and children will sleep better tonight knowing that they will continue to receive the vital assistance that the WIC Program provides.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues on the Committee on Rules to support an amendment to restore the full $76 million needed for the women, infants and children program. Let me make three important points about this funding. WIC is a program that works. If we restore the $38 million today, we will actually save the Federal Government over $100 million down the road. Second, the States, not the administration, not the Democrats in Congress, the States say that they need this money or else they will be forced to remove women and children from the WIC Program. Finally, let us remember the values that made this Nation great. We simply cannot in good conscience take food off the breakfast tables of the most vulnerable members of our society. I urge the Committee on Rules to allow this amendment. I urge my colleagues to restore the full amount of the President's authorization for women, infants, and children in this country.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Georgia said earlier let us talk about the facts of WIC. Here are the facts about the Women, Infant and Children Program. It feeds women, infants, and children. It provides necessary and critical prenatal services to pregnant women in our country. Fact: It works. It has in the past been a bipartisan effort, and the General Accounting Office of this Government has said for every $1 invested in the WIC Program we save $3\1/2\ in other kinds of expenses. Fact: There is a $76 million shortfall in the program, meaning that we will not be able to provide for 360,000 women, infants, and children. Fact: The congressional majority, the Republicans in this body, voted to cut, voted only to provide $38 million for this program, thereby leaving it $38 million short. Fact is that 180,000 women and children will be removed from the WIC Program if this current bill passes. This is about our values and our priorities in this country. We should not be passing legislation that denies food, breakfast cereal, formula, to women, infants, and children in this country. That is not what this great Nation is about. The fact is we ought to make sure that we have $76 million to continue this working program.

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, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Chair's approval of the Journal.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today, on the 10th anniversary of the death of Stewart McKinney, we marvel again at the indelible mark made by this incredible legislator and human being. Stew was a truly remarkable person, who cared deeply about other people and their lives. He was far above partisanship and division, working passionately on the issues to which he dedicated his life and which ultimately contributed to his death. Stew was committed to solving problems which weren't high profile or trendy. He worked to secure safe housing for all Americans at a time when our Nation preferred to look the other way, and caught the pneumonia which led to his death while sleeping on a grate in the rain with homeless men and women to draw attention to their plight. He worked to preserve the salt marshes and natural habitats of the Long Island Sound, acknowledging their importance long before being ``green'' was popular. He inspired his family and friends to advocate for people with AIDS, the disease he contracted from a blood transfusion, at a time when most politicians, celebrities, and high- profile people of all walks of life chose not to become involved. Stewart McKinney's life is memorialized in three refuges which bear his name: the Stewart B. McKinney Housing Act, the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge, and the McKinney Foundation, which provides emergency shelter to, and operates two residences for, people with AIDS. This week, as we debate the reauthorization of the housing programs about which Stew cared so deeply, may we all be blessed with the compassion, the foresight, and the commitment which he brought to the House floor.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, as we begin to work out the details of last week's balanced budget agreement, we need to remember that the choices that we make in this body reflect the values of our Nation. Next week this Congress will have an opportunity to cast an important vote about our budget priorities when we vote on funding for the Women, Infants and Children program. Will this Congress vote to take milk, cereal, and formula off the breakfast tables of needy families, or will we vote to give this program the additional $38 million in funding that it needs to prevent 180,000 women and children from being removed from the WIC Program? As we watch this budget agreement take shape, we need to vote to uphold the values of this Nation. We can start by fully funding the WIC Program, because it is a program that works. For every dollar spent, we save $3.50. It is a program that provides assistance to some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Democrats are united in our opposition to WIC reductions, and I urge my Republican colleagues to join us in voting to restore the full amount of the President's request for WIC.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on May 9, 1997, my good friend, Dr. Gerald Tirozzi, is being honored by the Farnam Neighborhood House for his years of service to the city of New Haven. I am very pleased to recognize Dr. Tirozzi's extraordinary career in the field of education. As a nation, nothing should be a higher priority than the education of our kids. How and what our children learn in school will have direct repercussions for the future of our country. Talented, energetic, and dedicated educators are the best way to ensure our kids have a strong beginning. Gerry Tirozzi has devoted his life and career to making certain our kids have every opportunity to succeed. Born and raised in New Haven, CT, Gerry began teaching science in a New Haven school in 1959. His career has now taken him far from that school but his heart remains in the classroom. In the past 35 years, he has held a number of positions of leadership in the field of education and has an exceptional record of accomplishments. He has always focused on raising the expectations we have of our students. Gerry truly believes that all our kids have the ability to excel and, while serving as Connecticut's commissioner of education, instituted reforms that significantly raise academic standards for students. Every parent wants their child to have the best education and Gerry's work in this State has helped make that possible. On January 19, 1996, Gerry was appointed Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education by President Clinton. This appointment has given Gerry the opportunity to serve not only the city of New Haven and the State of Connecticut, but to have an impact on kids in every community in the country. A tireless advocate, Gerry has used this position to continue his lifelong goal of improving education for all children. Gerry's contributions to education at the local, State, and national level will be honored by Farnam Neighborhood House with the Community Service Award. Located in New Haven, Farnam is a community center which runs social and educational programs for children through seniors. A terrific asset to the New Haven community, Farnam brings people together and gives kids a positive way to spend time. As a child, Gerry was a member of Farnam and worked as a game room supervisor there during his college years. I commend Farnam Neighborhood House and I applaud Gerry's association with this great organization. Dr. Tirozzi's work has touched countless children and made significant improvements in the quality of their education and their lives. I am proud to rise today on his behalf.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a letter printed in this morning's New York Times by my friend and my colleague from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston]. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] writes that the President's request for $76 million in funds for the women, infants and children program is based on old census data. The statement is simply inaccurate. The $76 million figure is based on numbers submitted from the States to the U.S. Department of Agriculture in early April of this year. These are not House Member numbers. These are not administration numbers. These are the numbers from the united States in this country. These numbers are in fact only a few weeks old. More importantly, these figures indicate that without the full $76 million requested by the President, 360,000 women and children will be removed from the WIC Program. Does the majority party really want to take milk, cereal, and formula off the breakfast tables of thousands of needy families? I do not think so. Democrats are united in our opposition to the WIC reductions. I urge my Republican colleagues to join us in voting to restore the full amount of the President's request for WIC.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson], to prevent public housing residents from being evicted for failing to comply with the congressional majority's mandated volunteerism provisions. The majority calls the, quote, community work hours, requirements that are contained in H.R. 2 for public housing residents volunteerism. But it is volunteerism only in the most Orwellian sense. The real name for this is forced labor, and as my colleagues before me have pointed out, the overtones of these provisions are profound and frankly disturbing. Residents of public housing are not criminals. Many work to support their families. They volunteer their time to housing projects and to their community. Forcing an individual to volunteer to avoid being thrown into the streets is hardly likely to provide positive results to the community. This is true if this volunteer requirements take a parent away from child care or efforts to find or to keep a job. The congressional majority has a history of supporting tax breaks for the wealthiest corporations. Many support subsidies for farmers and loan guarantees for businesses. When in the history of this body have we required a farmer or a CEO of a major corporation to volunteer in return for a subsidy or loan guarantee? In the last session of this Congress we could not even get the congressional majority to close a loophole on those companies that made a fortune in this country and then turned around and gave up there citizenship, went to the Bahamas, went someplace else, denied being a citizen of the United States so that in fact they would not have to pay taxes, and we could not get the congressional majority to close that loophole. What do we do about the tobacco CEOs who lied about the addictive quality of tobacco, who have received billions of dollars in subsidies? What are we going to require of them for having killed people in this country because of tobacco, an addiction? What we are talking about here? A true public housing volunteerism provision could have been written in any number of ways. It could have required housing authorities to establish outreach programs to encourage volunteerism; it could have provided financial resources to nonprofit organizations to increase volunteerism in public housing. There are many ways to engage people in volunteerism, as we just saw in this last weekend. Instead the majority has chosen to force nearly all public housing residents to volunteer their time, no matter what other commitments? These individuals may have. The bill does not even contain an exemption, and I am delighted to hear that my colleague the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson], is going to offer that as his next amendment. There is no exemption for the moment for caregivers, single mothers, individuals who care for the elderly, or even individuals who care for a disabled loved one. Please accept this amendment on this issue. Let us do the right thing by the people who live in public housing in this country.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act. Simply stated, the bill fails to help those whom public and assisted housing was created to serve. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and support the Kennedy substitute to ensure that local housing authorities serve Americans with the greatest housing needs. Mr. Chairman, there is bipartisan consensus that public housing needs to improve. We all agree that public housing must be safer and work better. We all agree that HUD must be streamlined and refocused. But true reform, true reform, would not abandon our Nation's most vulnerable citizens, and that is what this bill does. Not only does this bill fail in its most basic mission, helping the poorest of the poor, but it also creates new obstacles to finding shelter. The bill institutes mandated voluntarism for residents of public housing. This bill requires forced labor in exchange for subsidized shelter, a requirement that does not exist for any other Federal assistance. The only acceptable use of forced labor is as a punishment for a crime, and it is not a crime to be poor. We do not require the CEO's of the major lumber companies to volunteer in exchange for subsidizing their logging on public lands. We do not require tobacco farmers to volunteer in exchange for Federal crop insurance. We do not force flood victims to volunteer when we help them to rebuild their communities. Public and assisted housing residents are not criminals. They hold jobs. They raise families. Many participate in residential and community activities. H.R. 2 is bad policy. My colleague earlier talked about who is bad and who is good. The individuals are not bad or good, but there is good policy and there is bad policy. This is bad policy. It provides assistance to families with the means already available to them to find housing. It takes shelter away from the poorest of the poor. It adds mandates on local housing authorities. Be assured, this bill would keep children and elderly individuals out of public and assisted housing. Please oppose H.R. 2 and support the Kennedy substitute.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last week my Republican colleagues voted against the President's request for $76 million for the WIC Program. That is women, infants, and children. Our friends on the other side of the aisle will tell us that they voted to increase spending on women, infants, and children, but their so-called increase will force 180,000 women and children to be removed from the WIC Program. WIC is one of the Government's greatest success stories, and every dollar that we invest in the program saves the Government $3.50 in other costs. If this bill passes without the additional $38 million that it needs, we will be hurting some of the most vulnerable members of our society: pregnant women and young children. This is about values. This is about throwing 180,000 women and children off of a food program. It will deny youngsters food. Last year my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to cut the school lunch program. Now they are going after WIC. It is wrong. This is the richest Nation in the world. We should not be taking food out of the mouths of children. I urge my Republican colleagues to rethink their actions.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Adoption Promotion Act, and I want to commend my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp], for their unyielding efforts to ensure that all of our children have a chance to settle into a loving, and into a permanent home. Every child deserves the chance to grow up healthy and happy, ready to learn and to be able to succeed in life. Every day, children are growing, not only physically, but emotionally and intellectually. These years are too precious and too important to spend in abusive or unstable care. But in today's foster care system, it can take years before a child is adopted and settled into a permanent and caring home. This bill accelerates the process for adoption proceedings. It makes sure that foster children who come from a life of abuse can be removed from these situations into a loving and a caring environment. Finally, it helps States to help children and families by providing financial assistance to increase the number of adoptions. The bill takes an important step toward balancing the rights of parents with the rights of children to loving and caring and stable homes. We need the bill now. Our children cannot wait. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Adoption Promotion Act.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing today from my Republican colleagues. The Speaker brought discredit upon this House; he admitted that he lied to the Congress. Republicans are celebrating the fact that the gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, is paying a $300,000 fine for lying to Congress. There is nothing to celebrate, my friends. The Speaker should not be applauded for violating the ethics law of this body. He should not be applauded for paying this fine after delaying for 4 months. Any American citizen would have had to pay that fine immediately. The facts on his payment remain sketchy. Is it a loan or a $350,000 gift from the chief lobbyist of the tobacco industry? Let us not forget, let us not forget that the Speaker pled guilty. It is nothing to celebrate. It is, in fact, a sad day for the House of Representatives.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is the same old song and dance here on Capitol Hill. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are proposing large tax cuts for the rich at the expense of middle class working families. The latest tax proposal put forth by the Speaker of the House is to eliminate all capital gains and estate taxes, which would cost a staggering $300 billion over the next 5 years. Who benefits from these cuts? The wealthiest 5 percent of Americans. And who pays for these cuts? Working families. Do not just take my word for it. USA Today estimated on Monday that it would cost the average American family $400 a year to pay for this tax windfall for the wealthy. It is time to stop proposing huge tax breaks for those who need it the least and to start providing targeted tax relief for those who need it the most: Middle class American families.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because in fact we ought to be using this time to consider campaign finance reform. We all know that the system is broken, and we need to vote on campaign finance reform and we need to do something about reconnecting with the American people. Let me have just a little stage-setting if I might. The rule before us today would allow us to consider what we call suspension bills here, today, which is a Wednesday. Suspensions are noncontroversial items and are considered on Mondays and Tuesdays, so that in fact this House of Representatives can get down to business for the rest of the week and talk about those issues that the public truly does care about, such as fixing our campaign finance system. It is hard today to open a newspaper without reading about the lack of accomplishment of this Congress, the do-nothing Congress. But the worst of it is that the Congress is doing nothing when the issue of campaign finance reform cries out for action. Record sums of money, $2.7 billion, were spent in the 1996 elections, and the American people rightly are asking and saying that there is too much money in the process. Yes, in fact, we have investigations, investigations which I support, which my side of the aisle supports and they ought to go forward. However, it is interesting that in the other body we have an investigation that is proceeding in a bipartisan way to look at how we look at the Executive Branch, and in fact how we look at the Congress and how they spent their money in the last campaign. However, on this side of the aisle, on the Republican side of the equation, there is an investigation, but the chairman refuses to allow the investigation to be broadened to the Democrats and Republicans and the Congress. Mr. Speaker, my colleague just before me talked about where is the outrage. I am outraged. I am outraged by the amount of money that is in this system. Let us open up the investigation on the House side to what the Congress did in the last elections. One of the reasons why my colleagues do not want to do this, let me just tell the Members a little bit about how the majority here, the Republicans, have put special interests before the public interest. Members will see, that ``Donors Tell GOP They Are Fed Up''. ``Tax Cuts the Talk as the Chiefs Gather.'' They do not want to deal with campaign finance reform because they are frightened to death that these folks are not going to give them the money that they want. Let us talk about the last session of the Congress. Tobacco gave the RNC, the Republican National Committee, $7.4 million. The GOP passed favorable legislation, a bill that would have saved the tobacco companies millions and millions of dollars. The NRA, National Rifle Association, gave $2 million, and Members may remember that the GOP worked hard and tried to kill the assault weapons ban. The GOP Congress let big business help to write the workplace safety bill. January 1995, big business lobbyists wrote up a 30-point item wish list for limiting certain workplace safety regulations. Life and death for American men and women in the workplace. When the bill was finished in early June, virtually every single item on that wish list had been incorporated into the final version of the bill. Business lobbyists even worked closely in drafting the bill. GOP lawmakers let lobbyists rewrite environmental legislation. The Republican whip admitted that he let a group of big business lobbyist contributors write the plan to place a freeze on environmental legislation: clean water, clean air, safety, and health of our families in this country; that he allowed the lobbyists to write the legislation, and this is a quote from him, he says, ``because they have the expertise.'' And many of the lobbyists had helped to funnel corporate money to Republican campaigns. The list goes on. This is a book called the NRCCC, National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, the tactical PAC project. If we go down the list here, we will find that every single political action committee has a rating of friendly or unfriendly in it, and this was used by the chairman of that committee to determine who would get a hearing, who could be let in the door. If they were unfriendly, in fact, they could not come in to have a conversation because they had not given enough. Friendly translates into special interest money. Nonlegislative outrages. The chairman of the National Republican Committee threatened to limit access of business who gave to Democrats. GOP leaders kept a friendly and unfriendly PAC list of who gave to the Republicans and to the Democrats. ``Two-hundred and Fifty Thousand Donors Promised Best Access to Congress by the RNC''; money bought access. Let me just conclude by saying that in fact we have a problem in the money that is involved in our politics. We are investigating. We are open to the investigation. I, for one, as a Democrat stand here and say, open the House investigation to Republicans and Democrats in the Congress. I am not afraid. Why are you afraid? That is what we ought to be doing. In fact, what we ought to do is get down, buckle down, get campaign finance reform legislation on this floor to debate and go through, and for the American people, to win that trust back, pass campaign finance reform before Memorial Day.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and in strong opposition to amending the Constitution to eviscerate majority rule and to favor the wealthy and the powerful over working families. As my colleagues know, the first bill I ever introduced as a Member of the Congress was the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 1991, so I welcome a debate on the best way to cut taxes. But today we cannot even have that debate. Today we are having a mock debate because only one party has tax cuts on the table, the Democrats. We have heard so much talk from the Republicans about cutting, we could think that they had a tax cut proposal. The fact is that they do not. In fact, the Republican tax package might be called the Hale-Bopp tax cut because it seems that my Republican colleagues are waiting for the tax cut to drop from the heavens. But tax cuts and budgets do not fall from the sky, they take work to produce, and it is time that my colleagues from across the aisle come back to Earth and get down to business. Today, April 15, has dual significance. It is the tax filing deadline for American families, but it is also the deadline for Republicans to submit their budget. As Americans all across the country live up to their responsibilities and to meet their deadline by filing their taxes, Republicans are ignoring their responsibility by ignoring their deadline to present a budget, and that is why this Congress has been dubbed the do-nothing Congress. If Republicans are honest about wanting to cut taxes, there is only one way to do that, and that is to present a budget. But only the Democrats have a budget on the table, and in this budget President Clinton has proposed middle-class tax relief including tax cuts to pay for college, tax cuts to buy a first home, and tax deduction for adoption. It is a plan that would help those who need it most. But most important, all of these tax cuts are paid for within a balanced budget, and that is the real reason why Republicans cannot and will not produce a budget. The truth of the matter is that the tax cuts they propose cannot be paid for in a balanced budget without making deep and dangerous cuts in Medicare and education and in the environment, and we all know that the American people rejected that tradeoff in the last Congress. Mr. Speaker, that means it is time to go back to the drawing board, come up with a tax plan that we can pay for and produce a balanced budget. The President has done so. It is time for Republicans to stop waiting for that Hale-Bopp tax cut, and I can assure my colleagues that a tax cut in the balanced budget will not be delivered on the tail of a comet. So roll up those sleeves and get down to work. Then maybe this Congress can be known as the Congress that delivered tax relief to American families instead of the do-nothing Congress.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name withdrawn as a cosponsor of H.R. 950. My name was inadvertently included as a cosponsor of this bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago this country made a pact with senior citizens: Work hard all your life and you will be assured of health care coverage when you need it most. Today the Medicare Program is one of our Nation's great success stories. Yesterday my Republican colleague the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] stated that billions of dollars in additional cuts were needed in the Medicare Program. Meanwhile, Speaker Gingrich announced a new Republican effort to eliminate all taxes on capital gains. These are the tax cuts, my colleagues, that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans versus 37 million seniors who have Medicare. Looks like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are up to their old tricks, slashing Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Democrats in this Congress pledge today to continue to stand up for our Nation's seniors. We are going to fight these Republican efforts to cut the health care of those who need it the most to pay for tax breaks for those who need it least. They are afraid to put their budget on paper; that is why they will not produce a budget. They do not want it there. Read between the lines. It is the same old story: Medicare cuts to pay for tax cuts.