Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speakers, on Sunday, October 27, 1996, the American Committee on Italian Migration will honor Sister Ann Matthew Lorusso and E. William Iovanne with the 1996 Community Service Award. I am very pleased to rise today to recognize the great work of the American Committee on Italian Migration and the wonderful contributions to the community made by Sister Ann and Bill. Both of these individuals have deep roots in the New Haven community and have made great efforts to give something back to the city and the people who live here. Sister Ann has been with the hospital of St. Raphael in New Haven since 1968 and her tenure there has produced unique programs and projects. A dedicated nurse, Sister Ann spent years in nurse management at St. Raphael's because she loved to be with the patients and to work with people. She is now the parish nurse coordinator for the hospital. She oversees an interdenominational program which puts a nurse in synagogues and churches to meet the wellness needs of the congregation. Sister Ann has referred to the program as ``community nursing'' and she focuses on educational programs to prevent illness and disease. As health care becomes increasingly difficult to access, Sister Ann is heading a program that reaches out to people and makes sure they get the care they need. In addition to work at the Hospital of St. Raphael, Sister Ann has served on the Mayor's Commission on Aging since 1994. It is in this capacity that she is able to address the needs of the area's elderly. Sister Ann speaks passionately about finding ways to tap into community resources to ensure that our elderly community is provided for. We are very lucky to have such a dedicated educator and advocate working on behalf of the people of New Haven. This tribute is a most appropriate honor for Bill Iovanne because he is so proud of his Italian heritage and is deeply committed to the Italian-American community here in New Haven. A lifelong resident of Wooster Square, Bill took over the business his father started. His tenure as president of Iovanne Funeral Home has earned him the respect and admiration of many. I have known Bill for many, many years and our families remain closely connected. He has never failed to help families in their time of need. The loss of a loved one is such a trying, difficult time but Bill provides comfort and support to everyone. Indeed, Bill is not only passionately devoted to his own family, he has a reputation for treating everyone like a member of the family. I am very proud to join the American Committee on Italian Migration as they honor these two remarkable individuals. They have dedicated their lives to working with and for others and I commend them for their commitment to their Italian-American heritage. They make me proud to be a member of the Italian-American community.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we are voting today on a resolution regarding the display of the Ten Commandments. Whatever Members vote on this resolution, I think we can all agree: This is not the most pressing issue that is facing our Nation today. Today the American people are much more concerned about the 10 million children living without health insurance in this country than they are with the issue of whether or not we hang the Ten Commandments on the wall. We all know actions speak louder than words, and the Ten Commandments are important words; important words to me. But what about our actions? What is this body doing to help the children in this Nation, over 70,000 in my home State of Connecticut alone, that will go to sleep tonight without health insurance? We are only spending time on this issue of the Ten Commandments because the GOP operative, William Kristol, suggested that this be done in the March 10 edition of the conservative publication, the Weekly Standard. The American people should be driving the agenda of this House and not Republican conservative operatives. We must make children's health care our top priority in this session of the Congress.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, may I first associate myself with the remarks of my colleague in terms of the opportunity to talk about issues that come up and do it at the beginning of the day. I think the 1-minutes are a useful tool, and helpful to the public in terms of following the debate here. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress to fight for working families, and there is no issue more important to the health of families than the health and well-being of their kids. Expanding health care coverage for the 10 million uninsured children in this Nation must be at the top of our legislative agenda. There are kids without health insurance in all kinds of families. The vast majority, 90 percent, are the children of working parents. But their parents either lack health insurance themselves or their health plans do not cover their kids. Children living without health insurance are hurt in so many ways. They are less likely to have a family doctor, less likely to receive preventive care, less likely to receive treatment, even for serious illness, and thus are less likely to grow up healthy and to be productive adults. I urge the leadership to move the expansion of children's health care to the top of their legislative agenda, so we can make sure that the 10 million uninsured kids in this country have a chance to grow up healthy, ready to learn, and to succeed in life.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, over 70,000 children in my home State of Connecticut woke up this morning without any health insurance, and tonight their parents will lie awake, worrying, knowing that they are one phone call, one accident away from medical and potentially financial ruin. As we come together from both sides of the aisle to work on areas of common ground, surely we can agree that providing health care for our children must be a top priority. Yesterday the Democratic leaders asked the majority leadership to move the expansion of health care coverage for children to the top of their legislative agenda. There are 10 million reasons why we must do this, for the 10 million children in this country living without health insurance. If there is one thing the American people are counting on us to do, it is to make the world a better place for their families, and we cannot have healthy families without healthy kids. We need to make health care work for all of America's children. We must take this issue, make it a top priority, in this new session of the Congress.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday evening, NBC aired Schindler's List, the epic film about the Holocaust directed by Steven Spielberg. Yesterday I was shocked to learn that a colleague here in this House criticized NBC for airing this movie, saying that it should outrage parents and decent-minded individuals everywhere. This film was aired to educate and to enlighten decent-minded individuals everywhere. There is a difference between gratuitous violence and history. Is this film violent? Yes. Was the Holocaust violent? Yes. Is this film difficult to watch? Yes. And that is why NBC warned its viewers to use their discretion in allowing children to watch the film. Steven Spielberg said that he would not allow his grade school children to watch, taking personal responsibility for monitoring his children's viewing habits, as all parents can and should do. Mr. Speaker, NBC should not be condemned for showing this film. NBC should be commended for showing this film, a film that documents one of the darkest chapters of our world history, a chapter that we must never forget.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, today I am asking my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 36, which releases funds which support family planning programs all around the world. This vote is not about supporting abortion. Not $1 of our family planning funds can be used to perform abortions anywhere in the world. This vote is about preventing abortion. This vote is about improving the health of women and children. This vote is about saving lives. U.S. family planning aid saves the lives of women, and each year around the world 600,000 women die in childbirth. If we fail to pass this resolution today, family planning and health clinics across the developing world will close. That means that a CARE program giving rural Bolivian women their first-ever pap smears will have to shut its doors. Cervical cancer is curable, but it must be caught early. I am a cancer survivor. I understand the importance of this kind of preventive health care. Women in this region of Bolivia do not have any other health care options. If the family planning clinic closes, more mothers will die from curable diseases such as cervical cancer. 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. Today we must renew our commitment to these important priorities. We must keep the promise that was made to the President and release the funds without any qualifications or alterations. Today's vote does not add more dollars to our family planning budget, but by voting yes to this resolution, we vote to add more days to the life of a poor mother in the Philippines, we vote for fewer unwanted pregnancies in Tajakistan. We vote for fewer abortions across the world. Support women's health, support children's health, support family health by voting ``yes'' on this resolution.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, a headline in yesterday's Washington Post provided a sad commentary on the state of our educational system. The headline read: ``Teens Tell Researchers High School Is Too Easy.'' The article revealed the findings of a recent study by the nonprofit group Public Agenda, and it was entitled, and I quote, ``Getting By.'' The survey of 1,300 high school students found that most students think their classes are not challenging enough, often lack exemplary teachers, and are filled with too many disruptive students. We all know there are no easy answers to the ills that plague our Nation's schools, but here are some obvious first steps that we can take to address the feelings expressed by students in the survey: getting back to basics, setting rigorous standards for students and teachers, and returning discipline to the classroom. These may sound like old-fashioned techniques but, according to this survey, a new generation of students would welcome these old ideas. What we ought to be doing, instead of spending 9 hours in debating term limits today, is I call on the Republican leadership to please let us get to what the people want to talk about, and that is education, the affordability of it, the standards that exist in our classrooms. Let us put the Nation's business first before politics.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced four bills that I hope will add to the dialogue about the Federal Government's role in establishing public-private partnerships to leverage both public and private investment in America's infrastructure. Congress has recognized that our Nation simply does not have the resources to fix and rebuild all of our schools, our highways, mass transit facilities, environmental infrastructure, ports and airports and other infrastructure facilities. Public-private partnerships hold great potential in helping to fill this estimated $30 billion to $80 billion in annual Federal investment, a shortfall in America's infrastructure. In the process we have the opportunity to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Congress started to address the idea of leveraging both public and private investments in infrastructure during the debate over the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. In addition to promoting discussion about innovative financing tools, the legislation granted to States the authority to establish something called a State infrastructure bank, or an SIB, in cooperation with the Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation has now enabled ten States to establish the State infrastructure banks, which are intended to attract both public and private investment in transportation infrastructure. These entities, the State infrastructure banks, are funded using an allotment from the States' Federal transportation apportionments. The success of the newly created SIB's is limited by undercapitalization and an inability to leverage projects other than highway and mass transit infrastructure. The bills that I offered today will try to provide several solutions for addressing these weaknesses in a constructive and cost-effective manner. Building on the effectiveness of the financial mechanisms created by these State infrastructure banks, I introduced four bills that will greatly expand the role of these kinds of entities and are related to public-private partnerships. The first bill is the State Infrastructure Bank Expansion Act, which works by studying ways to expand the use of, and to increase the capital, the money, for these State infrastructure banks. The second bill, the National Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, creates a Federal entity that functions much like these State creations. The third bill, the Public Benefit Bonds Innovative Financing Act, creates a new form of infrastructure bond that can be purchased by institutional investors. The last bill, the National Infrastructure Development Act, ties the two latter vehicles together as a comprehensive approach to leveraging public and private investments in infrastructure. The first bill, the State Infrastructure Bank Expansion Act, directs the Secretary of the Treasury, in cooperation with heads of other Federal departments, to study the way in which the State Infrastructure Banks can be expanded. The purpose of the study is to determine whether the State banks could be used to finance projects outside of the realm of transportation, so that we can include other areas that could be utilized by the State bank. I also reintroduced the National Infrastructure Development Act. This bill uses two financing mechanisms to attract private capital. First, the National Infrastructure Development Act creates a new category of a revenue-neutral bond called a public benefit bond. These are tax-exempt bonds which can be used by investors to attract capital for infrastructure development. The act would also create a Government-sponsored corporation that would have the same kinds of functions as a State Infrastructure Bank, but with expanded authority. The lending corporation would eventually become fully privatized once it has the capital it needs by way of returns on its infrastructure investments. What I want to do with these bills is to open up a bipartisan discussion about the ways in which we can create the most effective financing tools for rebuilding America's infrastructure. In the era of declining Federal budgets, what we need to do in an effort to try to create jobs, we need to create these jobs and at the same time to try to save the Federal Government money. We need to have private financing tools, private investment, in investing in America's infrastructure. Today there are many, many American corporations who are investing in infrastructure in Third World countries. What we want to do is to try to capture some of those investment funds and have them invested right here in the United States, where we can rebuild our schools, our roads, our bridges, our mass transit system, our rail system, our airports, our environmental facilities, and in the process, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. I urge my colleagues to study the bills over the coming weeks and months. I hope they will be able to demonstrate their support for these kinds of public-private partnerships. I thank the Members for their consideration.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 1997. I want to thank my colleagues Representatives Dingell, Roukema, Ackerman, Thomas, Barrett, Bentsen, Corrine Brown, Sherrod Brown, Clayton, Clement, Conyers, DeFazio, Eshoo, Evans, Faleomavaega, Farr, Foglietta, Jon Fox, Frank, Frost, Gejdenson, Gonzalez, Gordon, Green, Hinchey, Patrick Kennedy, Kennelly, Kildee, LaFalce, Lowey, McDermott, Carolyn Maloney, Carrie Meek, Patsy Mink, James Moran, Morella, Murtha, Nadler, Norton, Oberstar, Olver, Owens, Pallone, Payne, Pelosi, Quinn, Rahall, Rivers, Sanders, Slaughter, Towns, and Velazquez for joining me as original cosponsors. As an active participant in the fight for health care reform, I continue to believe that we must reform the health care system to provide quality care for all Americans. Particularly important is ensuring that women receive equitable treatment in our nation's health care system. This year, approximately 184,300 grandmothers, mothers, and daughters will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Another 44,300 women will die from this disease. With one in every eight women developing breast cancer, virtually every family in America is vulnerable to this disease. That's why today I am filing a bill that sets a minimum length hospital stay for patients undergoing breast cancer treatment. This bill would require a minimum hospital stay of 48 hours for mastectomies and 24 hours for lymph node removals. Standard surgical treatment for breast cancer includes mastectomy, lymph node dissection, and lumpectomy. Over the least ten years, the length of hospitalization for patients undergoing mastectomies has dwindled significantly from 4-6 to 2-3 days. In the past, patients undergoing lymph node dissections generally were hospitalized for 2-3 days. Hospitalization is essential for pain control and for the management of fluid drainage from the operative site. The less tangible, but still important benefit of hospitalization is to provide a supportive surrounding for the patient to address the psychological and emotional reactions to having breast cancer, such as depression, anxiety, and hostility. Now, under incessant pressure from managed care organizations to reduce costs, surgeons have had to perform lymph node dissections and even mastectomies as outpatient surgery. Some health maintenance organizations [HMO's] send their patients home a few hours after their surgery groggy from anesthesia, in pain, and with drainage tubes still in place. Others even deny women hospitalizations on the day of their lymph node dissection or mastectomy, making the surgeon choose between giving the patient the individual care she needs or being penalized by the HMO for not following its guidelines. Doctors, concerned for their patients' well-being, even find themselves locked in battle with HMO's. One doctor in my district had to spend over 7 hours--not in surgery treating women for breast cancer--but rather making phone calls pleading with HMO staff members to get a mastectomy patient admitted to the hospital for 24 hours. The guidelines that many managed care companies are using today are written by a single actuarial consulting firm. And, while a few physicians are employed by this company, none are actively performing breast cancer surgery. These guidelines are designed to fit the ideal breast cancer surgery patient that is placed in the most optimal situation. However, both the American College of Surgeons and the American Medical Association believe that most patients can not satisfy these guidelines and will require a longer length of stay. Today, HMO's base their coverage on the recommendations of health care actuaries, not on those of surgeons who care for patients day in and day out. And the guidelines they use to do it are based on the bottom line, not on medically established standards of care. That is simply unacceptable. Accepted practice has shown that victims of breast cancer need to remain in the hospital at least 48 hours after a mastectomy and 24 hours after a lymph node dissection. This legislation would ensure that women with breast cancer receive the medical attention they need and deserve. My bill ensures that health plans which provide medical and surgical benefits for the treatment of breast cancer provide a minimum length of hospital stay of 48 hours for patients undergoing mastectomies and 24 hours for those undergoing lymph node removals. Under this bill, physicians and patients, not insurance companies, can determine if a shorter period of hospital stay is appropriate. Beginning on the first day of the 105th Congress, with this bipartisan bill, we can ensure that women with breast cancer receive the best treatment and coverage available. And, we can ensure that crucial health care decisions are left in the hands of doctors, and not accountants. This legislation enjoys strong support from the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the National Association of Breast Care Organizations, the Y-Me National Breast Cancer Organization, the Families USA Foundation, the Women's Legal Defense Fund, and the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, as well as from women across the country from Wisconsin to California to New Hampshire. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to endorse this widely- supported bipartisan effort to help ensure that American women who have breast cancer receive the comprehensive and equitable health care coverage they deserve.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 1996. I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives Dingell, Sanders, Costello, Foglietta, Moran, Lowey, Pallone, Meek, LoBiondo, Pelosi, Nadler, Eshoo, Maloney, Norton, Clayton, and Slaughter, for joining me as original cosponsors. As an active participant in the fight for health care reform, I continue to believe that were must reform the health care system to provide quality care for all Americans. Particularly important is ensuring that women receive equitable treatment in our Nation's health care system. This year, approximately 184,300 mothers, daughters, and grandmothers will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Another 44,300 women will die from this disease. With every one in eight women developing breast cancer, virtually every family in America is vulnerable to this disease. That's why today I am filing a bill that sets a minimum length hospital stay for patients undergoing breast cancer treatment such as mastectomies at 48 hours and at 24 hours for lymph node removals. Standard surgical treatment for breast cancer includes mastectomy, lymph node dissection, and lumpectomy. Over the last 10 years, the length of hospitalization for patients undergoing mastectomies has dwindled from 5-6 to 2-3 days. Patients undergoing lymph node dissections were hospitalized for 2-3 days. Hospitalization is essential for pain control and for the management of fluid drainage from the operative site. The less tangible, but still important benefit of hospitalization is to provide a supportive surrounding for the patient to address the psychological and emotional reactions inherent to having breast cancer, that is, depression, anxiety, and hostility. Now, under pressure from managed care organizations to reduce costs, surgeons have had to perform lymph node dissections as outpatient surgery, and the length of stay for a patient having undergone mastectomy has been cut to 1 day, with the patient sent home with drainage tubes in place. Some HMO's send their patients home a few hours after their surgery. Others even deny women hospitalizations the day of lymph node dissection or mastectomy, making the surgeon choose between giving the patient the individual care she needs or being punished by the HMO for not following guidelines. A doctor in my district had to spend over 7 hours--not in surgery treating women for breast cancer--but rather making phone calls pleading with HMO staff members to get a mastectomy patient admitted to the hospital for 24 hours. The guidelines that some managed care companies are using today to support their cost-cutting strategy of shipping women out of the hospital after breast cancer surgery are the product of an actuarial consulting firm in health care. This firm publishes guidelines for breast cancer treatment that are written by actuaries and a few physicians employed by their company who are not actively performing breast cancer surgery. According to physicians, these guidelines are designed to fit the ideal breast cancer surgery patient that is placed in the optiomal situation. The American College of surgeons is reviewing these guidelines and believes that 80 percent of the time the normal patient will not satisfy these guidelines and will require a longer length of stay. Today HMO's are basing their coverage on health care actuaries, and not on surgeons who care for patients day in and day out and follow medically established standards of care. The is simply unacceptable. Accepted practice has shown that victims of breast cancer need to remain in the hospital at least 48 hours after a mastectomy and 24 hours after a lymph node dissection. This legislation would ensure that women with breast cancer get the medical attention they need and deserve. This bill ensures that health plans which provide medical and surgical benefits for the treatment of breast cancer provide a minimum length of hospital stay for patients undergoing mastectomies at 48 hours and at 24 hours for lymph node removals. Under this bill, physicians and patients, not insurance companies, can determine if a shorter period of hospital stay is appropriate. Although it is the end of session, our commitment to breast cancer patients remains absolute. Beginning with today, with this bill, we need to ensure that women with breast cancer receive the best treatment and coverage available. We will continue to work with surgeons and other medical groups to ensure that the highest standards of care and coverage are achieved. This legislation enjoys strong support of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, and I strongly urge all of my colleagues to join in their support of this bill. It will go a long way toward helping to ensure that American women receive comprehensive and equitable health care coverage should they be diagnosed with breast cancer.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. This Congress should reconvene once there is the continued deliberations of the committee as it so stated in its interim report, so we can bring this inexcusably long process to a just and proper end. point of order

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, let us not contribute to the delay any longer. The House should not adjourn without a mechanism in place that resolves the charges once the outside counsel finishes his work. This Congress should reconvene as soon as the outside counsel's report is filed. point of order

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is deeply disturbing that this Congress would choose to leave town with a dark ethical cloud handing over the U.S. House of Representatives. That cloud, the ethical charges against the Speaker, grows bigger and darker almost every day. The New York Times today says on its editorial page that we should not adjourn--that the House should not adjourn and simply pass this mess along to a new Congress and a new Ethics Committee. As the New York Times says, ``Had the Republicans been less eager to protect the Speaker, the whole case might have been resolved by now.'' Clearly this investigation has dragged on for far too long. Let us not contribute to the delay any longer. point of order

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday House Republicans held a campaign rally on the steps of the Capitol to celebrate their 2 years of running Congress with balloons and a brass band. But as someone once said, you can put wings on a pig but that doesn't make it an eagle. What's really going on here, and the reason why we are meeting in a highly unusual Saturday session is that Republicans are in a desperate hurry to get out of town and start putting some distance between themselves and the sorry record of failure they have accumulated. Don't just take my word for it. Listen to what the Los Angeles Times said earlier this week: The 104th Congress, which began almost 2 years ago with Republicans storming the barricades of the Washington establishment is ending with a mad dash for the exits--their forced march toward adjournment looks more like a hasty retreat.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my Republican colleague's request to pass Senate Joint Resolution 64 by unanimous consent request. Senate Joint Resolution 64 is a bipartisan resolution honoring the Operation Sail Organization and OpSail 2000, an international gathering of tall ships that will take place in New York Harbor to celebrate the 224th birthday of the United States and to welcome the new millennium. This glorious event follows the tradition of the previous OpSail events: OpSail '76 which celebrated the bicentennial of the Nation; OpSail '86 which celebrated the centennial of the Statue of Liberty; and, OpSail '92 which celebrated the 500th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of North America. Operation Sail has worked in cooperation with every President of the United States since John F. Kennedy, and all OpSail events have been endorsed by the President of the United States at that time. OpSail 2000 is expected to be the largest gathering of tall ships in history, and it will foster international good will and the advancement of brotherhood among nations. In addition, OpSail 2000 will showcase the beautiful Connecticut coast of the Long Island Sound for all the world to see. We look forward to this exciting even of which all Americans can be proud. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].

Ms. DeLAURO. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for an explanation of the legislation.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, these are the last hours of the Gingrich Congress. American families are breathing a sigh of relief that this extremist Congress is leaving town. Two years ago Republicans marched up Capitol Hill, taking over the people's House and shouting for revolution. But now the American people understand what they meant. It meant $270 billion cuts in Medicare to pay for a tax break for the wealthiest Americans. It meant cutting student loans by $10 million to put college even further out of the reach of working middle-class families hoping for a shot at the American dream, and then exposing workers' pensions to raids by corporations, making retirement even less secure, rather than honoring a lifetime of hard work. But the most amazing revelation of all comes from the House Republican whip, the gentleman from Texas, Tom DeLay, who says, ``We wouldn't change a thing.'' The American people cannot afford another Gingrich Congress.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, November 19, 1996 the Connecticut State AFL-CIO will hold a tribute dinner to honor Dominic J. Badolato. Dom is executive vice president of the Connecticut State AFL-CIO and president of AFSCME 1303. I have known Dom for a number of years and it gives me great pleasure to acknowledge his years of leadership and service to the public in his capacities on both the State and local level. I'm not sure where to begin when honoring Dom, he has contributed so much to the State and people of Connecticut. Dom began his career in the Connecticut General Assembly in 1954. He served as a State Representative for 22 years, representing his constituent's interests on a number of important issues like, fair labor laws and education. Indeed, Dom's most important and lasting legacy in the general assembly is his commitment to passing labor legislation. Dom worked on the passage of legislation which assured that Connecticut's minimum wage is always higher than the Federal minimum wage requirement. This permitted Connecticut public employees to be covered for the first time, and also provided them coverage under the Connecticut Fair Labor Standards Act. Dom worked to pass legislation which eliminated the waiting period for qualifying for unemployment compensation benefits, expanded the number of people covered by the law and included public employees under the law for the first time, as well as employees of nonprofit institutions. His legislation established a benefit level at 60 percent of taxable wages earned and expanded the number of unemployment compensation offices. Dom has been an untiring advocate of public employees. His efforts and leadership won public employees the right to collective bargaining. He also saw to the enactment of the Connecticut Municipal Employees Relations Act, the State Employees Relations Act, and the Teachers Collective Bargaining Act. In addition to being a champion for public employees in the general assembly, Dom has been a leader of the AFSCME Connecticut Council 4. Dom became a staff representative for AFSCME in 1961 and, in 1968, was elected to the post of executive director, a position he still holds. What is clear is that the issues that affect public employees have remained central to Dom's work and life. I am proud to join Dom's friends, family and colleagues as they honor his extraordinary commitment to the workers of the State of Connecticut. He has truly embodied the spirit of what it means to be a public servant and I applaud his unparalleled dedication.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Democrat Borski on a job well done. The Water Resources Development Act was perhaps the most bipartisan effort of the 104th Congress. I am particularly pleased because this bill will enable major projects in my congressional district in Connecticut to move forward. The bill eliminates federal jurisdiction over three local channel projects that are currently on hold in my district. In one case, a deauthorization will enable a state financed bridge project to be constructed--at no additional cost to taxpayers. I also want to commend my colleagues for authorizing the construction of an erosion barrier for Faulkner's Island, a federally owned wildlife refuge in the Long Island Sound. This refuge is a migratory resting site for over 300 species of birds, including threatened and endangered species. It also encompasses a working light house commissioned by Thomas Jefferson that would fall into the Sound in 15 years if the erosion is not stopped. Thank you again for your work on this bill. I urge my colleagues to pass this measure.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, in these final days of the 104th Congress, the American people need to remember what this Congress has been all about. Time and again Members of Congress who have tried to speak out on issues of concern to the American people in fact have been silenced. We have seen it today when Members of Congress attempted to discuss the very serious charges of Federal tax fraud documented in an independent counsel's report which the Ethics Committee refuses to release to the public. A year ago, Republican zeal---- point of order

Ms. DeLAURO. A year ago, Republican zeal to silence debate in the people's House resulted in the arrest of senior citizens who came to speak out against Republican plans to cut $270 billion from Medicare to pay for a $245 billion tax cut for the privileged few. And with the Medicare bill still on the chopping block because the Dole plan would require even deeper cuts in Medicare than the $270 billion in Medicare cuts proposed last year, the American people should ask themselves if they can trust this Republican Congress when it is so afraid of the truth, whether it be on Medicare or whether it be releasing the ethics report from the committee.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I think that in these closing days of this Congress, it is particularly important that what we try to do is to organize the remaining time that we have to discuss the truly critical events of this 104th Congress. Quite honestly, that has not always been easy to do, and time and again in the Gingrich Congress Members have been gagged and have been unable to talk about truly critical events. In fact, this week we mark an anniversary. A year ago, Democrats were forced to go out onto the lawn in front of the Capitol to hold a hearing on the cuts in Medicare that were proposed by Speaker Gingrich and the House Republican leadership. We held these hearings out on the lawn, and my colleagues will recall that we did that because the committees of jurisdiction were only going to hold one hearing. I repeat: One hearing on their proposal to devastate Medicare with a $270 billion cut, a cut, I might add, that was going to be used to pay for something coined the crown jewel of the Contract With America. And that was a tax cut, as it turned out, where we saw a tax cut for the most privileged people in our country. On that day, while we held these hearings on the lawn, to give a full airing to the impact of these cuts, we had a number of stalwart seniors who protested at the sham hearing that was being held. Those seniors, and sometimes we forget past events, those seniors were arrested. So, sadly, the history of this Congress has been a relentless attempt to keep the truth from coming out about the impact of some of these proposals. It is particularly important to note and to talk about again because what we are seeing in a proposal that has been offered by the standard bearer for the Republican Party, by Bob Dole, his economic plan, which, if we take a hard look at it could have devastating impact on Medicare. We also need in this context to recall what Senator Dole said about his own vote on Medicare, and I quote. Being only 1 of 12, proud to have been 1 of 12 who voted against the creation of Medicare because, he said, and again I quote, we knew it would not work. End quote. So Senator Dole has a track record on Medicare that seniors need to be informed about. Their families need to be informed about this track record. And, frankly, they need to be concerned about it. Under the Gingrich-Dole plan, Medicare could be cut by as much as $300 billion by the year 2002, even more than what Newt Gingrich and this Republican Congress tried to cut in 1995. If my colleagues will recall, that number was $270 billion, and no coincidence between the number 270 in Medicare cuts and the $245 billion that they wanted to provide in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. So if we take a look at what this $300 billion means to seniors, it means even higher out-of-pocket costs and lower quality health care for seniors. These Medicare cuts would help to pay for a tax plan in which more than 40 percent of the benefits would go to the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans. And the best evidence of how we would treat Medicare is what Republicans proposed to do to Medicare when they took over the Congress in 1995, and it is worth repeating. First, they proposed cutting $270 billion from Medicare to pay for a $245 billion tax cut for the wealthy. Second, they proposed policy changes that would have doubled premiums and would have reduced senior's choice of a doctor. Third, they proposed creating risky medical savings accounts that would skim the healthy and the wealthy out of traditional Medicare, thereby weakening the system and increasing premiums for those who remained in the program. Let me quote to you Dr. Joseph White from the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. He said recently, ``I have to look at the numbers, at the campaign statements and at what then Senator Dole and his colleagues supported in 1995 and I have to conclude that the risks to Medicare from candidate Dole's economic program are substantial.'' Finally I want to point out that this assault on Medicare is part of a larger attack on America's retirement security. Think about it. When Americans look forward to retirement, the three pillars of a secure retirement that they can count on are Medicare, private pensions and nursing home care. These were all under attack in 1995.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the VA-HUD appropriations bill for 1997. This bill provides increased funding to clean up the environment and insures health care coverage for mental health and for 48-hour hospital stays after a woman has given birth. This is critical legislation. This speaks to the needs of working families today. These are the issues that people are truly concerned about in their lives. I went to the local hospitals, I talked to the nurses and the women who give birth, and how if they are there only 24 hours you cannot detect jaundice, you cannot detect other illnesses that they might come down with, or that a baby can. This means so much to women's health. I want to commend Chairman Lewis and the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Stokes, the ranking member, for this opportunity. I also am particularly gratified by the spirit of the legislation that I introduced in a prior Congress on mental health parity that has been incorporated into this bill, ending the practice of discrimination against those who suffer from mental illness and their families. This legislation makes a difference in people's lives. That is why we are here to serve.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial law resolution to grant Speaker Newt Gingrich extraordinary power in the people's House. This legislation will give Speaker Gingrich the power to bring up virtually any legislation at any time, with no advance notice. Martial law is usually granted to military repressive regimes. It allows an individual, usually a dictator, to do whatever he or she wants to do without following the rule of law, without going through the regular processes of government. Do we in fact want to give that kind of power to Speaker Newt Gingrich given his past record in this 104th Congress? The resolution undermines debate in this House, but undermining debate is what this Congress has been all about, under the leadership of Speaker Newt Gingrich. This week marks the anniversary of the hearings that Democrats were forced to hold outside of this institution, on the lawn of the Capitol, because the Republican leadership refused to allow debate on massive Medicare cuts that they proposed. The Speaker shut down the Government because he was piqued that he did not leave by the front door of the President's airplane but left by the back door. Keep in mind, martial law, a dictator who can do whatever he or she wants to do without going through the regular process. The fact of the matter here is there is a pattern of silencing Members. We are watching it on this floor tonight. What they are trying to tell us is that we cannot speak about past rulings that have had to do with the Speaker in this House, what his record is about. He has been found guilty, that is a fact, in a number of the instances from this committee. They refuse to allow us to speak about any of this. They refuse to allow us to report on the allegations against the Speaker regarding the Speaker's tax fraud. Release this report.