Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to override the veto of the late-term medical abortion ban, and I urge my colleagues to vote to sustain this veto. Today's vote is not about abortion. It is about voting to ban a medical procedure that can save the life of a mother. It is about voting to ban a medical procedure that would allow a mother to have children. It is about voting against the medical procedure that Vikki Stella had to have to save her life, to see her children grow up and go to school and then to give birth to her son Nicholas. Vikki wrote to me about the pain that she went through when she and her family discovered that her son was diagnosed with nine major anomalies, including a fluid-filled cranium with no brain tissue at all, compacted, flattened vertebrae, and skeletal dysplasia in the third trimester of her pregnancy. Her doctors told here that the baby would never live outside of her womb. She wrote: My options were extremely limited because I am diabetic and don't heal as well as other people. Waiting for normal labor to occur, inducing labor early, or having a C-section would have put my life at risk. The only option that would ensure that my daughters would not grow up without their mother was a highly specialized, surgical abortion procedure developed for women with similar difficult conditions. Though we were distraught over losing our son, we knew the procedure was the right option . . . and, as promised, the surgery preserved my fertility. Our darling Nicholas was born in December of 1995. This procedure that we seek to ban today is the procedure that saved Vikki's life and preserved here family. Vikki's situation was heart wrenching. But mothers and fathers need to be able to make medical decisions like that with their doctors, not with religious organizations and not with political organizations, and certainly, and most of all, not with the Congress. The situation that these families are in is already difficult enough. Overriding this veto will only make it worse. I call on my colleagues, I plead with my colleagues, to vote no on the motion to override the veto.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 20, 1996 the Fair Haven Community Health Center will hold an Open House to dedicate its new building and to celebrate 25 years of service to the Fair Haven area. The Fair Haven Community Health Center has been a fixture on Grand Avenue for the past 25 years. During that time, it has been a part of the community people could always rely upon. The Center has undergone considerable change through the years. When it opened for two nights a week in 1971, it was housed in Columbus School with a storefront office and had a staff of five, including two VISTA volunteers. That year the Center was visited 500 times. By 1982, the Center had begun a prenatal and midwifery program and purchased, renovated, and added on the property at 374 Grand Avenue. The Center also opened the ``Body Shop,'' a school based clinic, at Wilbur Cross High School. Today, the Fair Haven Center has purchased, renovated and connected property at 362 Grand Avenue. The complete facility now has 24 exam rooms, a new laboratory, waiting area, health education and social service rooms. The Center has a staff of 80 including 10 physicians, 8 nurse practitioners, and 6 nurse midwives. The facilities include three buildings and three satellite clinics which received a total of 48,000 visits this past year. These new renovations and additions mean that the Center can continue to do what it does best, caring for people. Throughout its history, the Fair Haven Community Health Center has remained committed to the ideal of providing health care for all those who need it, regardless of their ability to pay. While medicine today is increasingly cost-conscious, Fair Haven practices medicine which puts the patient's well-being first. By combining preventive care and education with a range of services from prenatal care to geriatric medicine, the Center ensures that all its patient's needs are met. This holistic, integrated approach is what defines the Center and makes it so valuable to New Haven. Center Director, Katrina Clark said, ``We have always felt that we were part of the community, and I think that is why we've been so successful in meeting the health care needs of the people we serve. At a time when many people are alienated and rejected by the health care system, Fair Haven stands as a beacon of caring for our patients and providing excellent service.'' I am proud to rise today to congratulate the Fair Haven Community Health Center. The newly renovated facilities will enable the Center to provide even better health services and preventive care to the people of Fair Haven.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 3666, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1997, which the House passed on September 11, 1996. The issues of parity for mental health coverage and allowing a 48 hours hospital stay for newborns and mothers following child birth are extremely timely and relevant. As an active participant in the fight for health care reform, I continue to believe that all Americans should have the security of knowing that they will have health care coverage--regardless of their health or economic status. Perhaps no group of individuals has faced more discrimination by our Nation's health care system than those with mental illnesses. In the past 15 years, a revolution has occurred in neurobiology that has clearly documented that many of these severe mental illnesses are, in fact, physical illnesses. These physical disorders of the brain-- neurobiological disorders--are characterized by neuroanatomical and neurochemical abnormalities. Controlled clinical research undertaken by scientists across the Nation have produced a body of irrefutable scientific evidence documenting the physical nature of these disorders. Despite this, individuals with neurobiological disorders and their families continue to face discrimination and stigmatization by health insurance plans and society at large. I have visited with families who have had to cope not only with the emotional pain of dealing the neurobiological disorders, such as schizophrenia and autism, but the financial hardship as well. Health insurance coverage for mental disorders is often limited to 30 to 60 inpatient days per year, compared with 120 days for physical illnesses; copayments, which are usually about 20 percent for physical illnesses, are often raised to 50 percent. Because of these arbitrary limits on coverage, individuals and families affected by these disorders are faced with onerous financial burdens. These people deserve the same kind of care and treatment that is available to those who suffer from other severe illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, or heart disease. Families who are faced with severe mental illnesses should not be placed in a different category--financially burdened, stigmatized, and treated as if they had done something wrong. On June 8, 1995, I introduced the Equitable health Care for Neurobiological Disorders Act of 1995. My bill would help these individuals and their families by requiring nondiscriminatory treatment of neurobiological disorders. Health care plans would be required to provide coverage that is not more restrictive than coverage provided for other major physical illnesses and that is consistent with effective and common methods of controlling health care costs--such as copayments and deductibles. My bill also stipulates specific benefits that must be provided and assesses a penalty on those plans that do not comply with the Act's requirements. I believe that the provisions included in the Senate's version of the VA/HUD appropriations bill is a strong start toward achieving equity for those who truly suffer from mental illness. Requiring equal health coverage for these disorders is not just important to individuals suffering from neurobiological disorders and their families. it is also important to the Nation. According to the National Institutes of Mental Health, equitable insurance coverage for severe mental disorders will yield $2.2 billion in net savings each year through decreased use of general medical services and a substantial decrease in social costs. I also strong support the provision included in the Senate VA/HUD appropriations bill requiring health plan coverage for a minimum hospital stay of 48 hours for newborns and mothers following childbirth. I have spoken with Wilfred Reguero, M.D., the chairman of the St. Raphael OB/Gyn Department, and other hospital staff at a trip to St. Raephael's Hospital in my district. They told me of the dangers of early discharges for new mothers and their infants--discharges that are dictated by certain insurance companies, not doctors. The decision to discharge a new mother and her child should be based on medical criteria, not on the bottom line. According to reports published by the University of California San Francisco and Dartmouth's Hitchcock Medical Center, a post-delivery hospital stay of 24 hours or less means infants are not adequately tested and monitored by medical professionals for conditions that appear in the first few days of life, including jaundice and excessive weight loss. The reports found that mothers also experience medical difficulties, including lactation difficulties, urinary tract infections, incisional pain and post-partum pain and depression. I have cosponsored two bills H.R. 1948 and 1950 which would require health plans to provide maternity benefits for a minimum hospital stay for a mother and her newborn following the birth of her child. The bills do not mandate the length of hospital stays, but requires that longer stays are covered if deemed necessary by a woman, her family, and her physician. The legislation includes: A minimum stay of 48 hours for vaginal deliveries and 96 hours for caesarean-section deliveries. An exception for home births. A requirement for health plans to provide written notice to enrollees regarding coverage included in the act. I know that many States, including Connecticut, are pursuing similar laws, but we need Federal legislation to make sure that women who are covered by health insurance companies that are headquartered in other Sates are protected under the law. That's why I am so pleased that this legislation was included in the Senate VA/HUD appropriations bill and should be included in the final VA/HUD appropriations bill as well. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these instructions. Adoption of these policies will go a long way toward saving billions or dollars, eliminating the stigma and misunderstanding so often associated with neurobiological disorders, and ensuring that all mothers and babies are adequately cared for.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, September 19, 1996 the Quinnipiac Council Boy Scouts of America will hold their annual Good Scout Award Dinner in honor of Arnold J. Alderman. I am delighted to rise today to honor Arnold and the enormous contributions he has made to scouting and the New Haven community. The Good Scout Award is given annually to an individual who embodies the spirit of scouting. In both his business and professional life, the recipient must display integrity and a commitment to serving and helping others. Further, the Good Scout Award recipient must always be an inspiration and example for our youth. Arnold Alderman is such a person. For over 60 years, Arnold has been personally involved with scouting. He has served as scoutmaster of Troops 41, 62, 18, 52, 101 and has led Troop 41 of New Haven for more than 25 years. During this time, he has received the Scoutmaster's Key, Order of the Arrow, Shofar Award, Silver Beaver Award, Silver Antelope Award, Distinguished Eagle Award, and was selected as a Baden Powell Fellow. Arnold is frequently referred to as ``Fearless Leader'' by the more than 1,000 boys he has served as scoutmaster for. This nickname makes clear the respect and affection his troops feel for him. Arnold carries his genuine concern for people into his personal life as well. He has generously given his time, talents, and so much of himself to the people of New Haven. He has been involved with the Jewish Home for the Aged, the Christ Episcopal Church Community Soup Kitchen, Inc., the Easter Seal Goodwill Industries, the New Haven Jewish Federation, the New Haven United Way, the New Haven Jewish Community Center, the New Haven Colony Historical Society, and the New Haven Citizens Action Committee. Arnold clearly embodies the ethic of service to individuals and the community that scouting seeks to instill in young people. Young people learn values by watching the adults around them. For this reason, the example Arnold provides to the scouts in his troops is invaluable. I am pleased to join the Quinnipiac Council Boy Scouts of America in honoring Arnold Alderman. Congratulations on this well-deserved recognition.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit for the Record an article by the respected nationally syndicated columnist Mark Shields, entitled, ``Thanks to House Democrats.'' I hope all of my colleagues take a moment to read his keen analysis. In his column, Mr. Shields notes that the Democrats' resurgence nationwide has resulted from the steadfast resolve with which House Democrats have fought the Gingrich-Dole plan to slash Medicare to pay for tax breaks for the rich. The column clearly illustrates the Republican leadership's motive for raiding Medicare to finance their lavish tax breaks for their political allies and contributors. As Mr. Shields notes, Speaker Newt Gingrich, Republican leader Dick Armey, Republican whip Tom DeLay and Ways and Means Committee chairman Bill Archer all hail from districts with virtually no seniors. In Mr. Shield's words, ``These poor Republicans just don't know that many voters on Medicare.'' Mr. Speaker, Mark Shields is absolutely right that the Republican assault on Medicare--and House Democrats' determination to fight back-- has changed political history in this country. The American people have rejected the extreme agenda of the Republican revolution and are now looking to Democrats for commonsense answers to problems they confront in their daily lives. This remarkable turnabout is due, as the Shields column explains, ``Thanks to House Democrats.'' [From the Washington Post, Sept. 9, 1996] Thanks to House Democrats (By Mark Shields) Dick Morris, a self-admitted political genius, is obviously no fan of Blaise Pascal, the French philosopher- mathematician. It was Pascal who wrote more than three centuries ago: ``The only shame is to have none.'' Dick Morris is clearly without shame. Since resigning as President Clinton's most important campaign strategist after photographic evidence established his relationship with a $200-an-hour prostitute, Morris, in uninterrupted exclusive interviews, has been publicly taking bows for Clinton's political rehabilitation. Now comes the book to tell how Morris single-handedly rescued Clinton from the political dust bin. What's next? The miniseries? The movie? Before this offensive myth goes any further, let the facts be known. Bill Clinton owes his political comeback far more to congressional Democrats--from whom the Democratic president, at Morris's importuning, did his best to distance himself--than he does to his now-departed evil genius. Let's look at the record. On May 3, 1995, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) first presented the indictment on the House floor that was eventually to frame the case against the Republican House majority and Speaker Newt Gingrich. ``The Republicans have come to face the fact that they cannot give tax cuts to the wealthy, balance the budget and preserve Medicare, so now they are devising a plan by which they can make the cuts in Medicare to provide for the tax cuts for the wealthy.'' Reinforcing Miller in the Democrats' accusation that the GOP's $245 billion tax cuts could only be financed by the GOP-backed $270 billion cuts in future Medicare spending were Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Frank Pallone (D-N.J.). Day after day, with no encouragement from their president and with the unconcealed contempt of the president's minions, congressional Democrats repeated the charge and, in the process, changed political history. Consider these numbers. In June of 1995, barely six months into the Republican Revolution, according to a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, the most Republican-identified age group in the electorate were voters over the age of 65. Not surprisingly, these same older voters were the strongest generational supporters of the GOP agenda. Just 13 months later, in July of 1996, there had occurred absolutely no change in party identification of all voters between the ages of 18 and 49. But among voters over the age of 65, there had taken place a 20 percent swing from the Republicans to the Democrats. Among these older voters, support for the GOP agenda had plummeted by 23 percent. At the same time, for all voters under the age of 65, the corresponding drop in support for the GOP agenda had been within the poll's margin of error. Every analysis attributed the huge shift among over-65 voters not to Clinton's endorsement of school uniforms or teenage curfews but to his opposition to the Republicans' using reductions in Medicare to finance Republican tax cuts. All through 1995, Clinton, strongly urged by Dick Morris, tried to reach a budget compromise with the Republican majority on Capitol Hill. The president dearly wanted a deal that could win the backing of 100 House Democrats. But by then, because the Democratic leadership's case had been made so effectively, both in the country and in Congress, there was no way half the House Democrats could support a budget compromise blessed by Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex.). The steel in Clinton's spine was put there by House Democrats. Why were such successful politicians as Gingrich and Armey so tone deaf to the popular Democratic chorus on Medicare and tax cuts? One explanation for the apparent GOP obtuseness could be found in the Census Bureau. According to the most recent figures, when all of the 435 congressional districts are ranked by percentage of their population aged 65 and over, all but one of the nine districts with the fewest voters over 65 are held by Republicans. Ninth from the bottom is the district of House GOP Whip Tom DeLay of Texas. Fifth lowest is House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer, also of Texas. Fourth lowest is Gingrich himself, and the House member representing the second lowest number of senior voters in the United States is Armey. These poor Republicans just don't know that many voters on Medicare. So, if credit or blame is to be given for Clinton's ``standing on principle'' on Medicare and taxes, and consequently rising in the polls, then history requires that it be given to those liberal House Democrats.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to heed the words of Speaker Gingrich in 1989, and I quote: ``I think it is vital that we establish as a Congress our commitment to publish that report,'' making reference to the report against Speaker Jim Wright at the time, ``and to release those documents, so the country can judge whether or not the man second in line to be President of the United States of America, the Speaker of theHouse, should be in that position.'' Stop the coverup. Release the report. Further in 1989, Speaker Gingrich said---- point of order

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, there are only 15 days left before this Congress adjourns, and, with so little time left, it is critically important that theHouse Committee on Standards of Official Conduct immediately release the 100-page report by the outside counsel probing the dealings of Speaker Newt Gingrich. points of order

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, a further historical, further perspective. I quote from Congressman Gingrich at the time in 1989: ``The 435 Members of theHouse should look at all of the facts, should have available to them all of the reports and all of the background documents, and the American people should have the same.'' Indeed, the American people are owed the same. Release the report.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. If the gentleman will yield? If I might, there is precedent here for what we are talking about. All you have to do is to go back a few years, and I just will read you two or three quotes, and I will let you guess who said them. Now that report is secret. I do not know what is in it. I do not know of anybody other than the committee members and Mr. Phalen who know what is in it, except Mr. Wright's lawyer, and I think that that report and the backup documents have to be published. That was the then-Congressman Newt Gingrich. I cannot imagine going to the country, tell them we have got a $1.6 million report, and by the way there is nothing in it, but you cannot see it. This is exactly what we are talking about.

Ms. DeLAURO. Clearly that report is going to have to be published. That is right. The now-Speaker was right when he spoke in 1989. That report, it is a report by any other name is a report, ought to be published and the Members of this House ought to know what is in it. More importantly, the American public ought to know what is in it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is so clear. Nursing home care and what the proposal was with regard to Medicaid really gets into the heart and soul of what families are struggling with today. It is a very difficult decision to send a loved one to a nursing home. You make it with a sense of, am I doing the right thing for my elderly grandparents or parents; am I making the right decision for them, for me; what happens with my children? And this whole Medicaid proposal that says the money goes to the State, States will make a determination and make a choice between whether or not they spend their Medicaid dollars on children or on seniors in nursing homes. They were going to remove the national standards on nursing home care, as has been pointed out, put the burdens on spouses and adult children. Once again it was turned around. Suppose we find ourselves in a situation where our parent, if this went through, if we were not able to hold it back this time around, that the family would then, having made the decision of putting someone in a nursing home, have to take the person back into their home. What kind of cost is that? What kind of help do I provide----

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I really am delighted to join with my colleagues tonight, and I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership on this effort. Just in listening to the conversation, there is not anyone who has suggested that we should not be looking at making the Medicare program a stronger program, a better program, in a variety of ways. No one has their head in the sand to say that hey, it is good. It was started in 1965, we have now insured 99 percent of seniors. In the past that was 46 percent of seniors who had health insurance. But how do we go ahead and make it better? My colleagues were talking about the issue of fraud and abuse. There is in the system, I have introduced legislation, others have introduced legislation, to try to correct that problem. We did not remove the monitoring mechanism and the way to make sure that these restrictions on fraud and abuse would be lifted, rather than to look at them and refine it, the whole issue of holding down the costs, because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say they are trying to hold costs down. What is amazing to me is they only want to hold the costs down for America's seniors and for working families. You can hold the costs down, but in order to hold the costs down all over in the health care system, you have to hold the costs down in insurance companies, on hospitals, on doctors, on pharmaceutical companies, and everyone else. Why are we just singling out seniors to do that with, and thereby increasing their premiums and deductibles? They are not talking about doing anything about holding costs down in any other place in the system. Also, another point, where they held up their trustees' report and talked about how the trustees said we had to fix the program, that was $90 billion. We voted here for a democratic bill that talked about $90 billion, the difference now between $90 and $270 and that tax break of $245 billion for the wealthiest Americans. Now Mr. Dole comes up here and he says to us that he wants a tax cut, and he is going to look at $600 billion in a tax cut, and we know through CBO and others about that potentially $300 billion in a cut for Medicare? My point is that we know there ought to be changes, but the question is, and I know my colleagues have talked about this already, but the litany from the leadership on the other side of the aisle about fixing this program ought to put the fear of God into the public and give a sense of who can they trust on this issue? Mr. Dole, who talked about being proud of being 1 of 12 that he voted against Medicare because it was a program that did not work? Our colleague, Bill Thomas, who not just a month ago on this floor talked about Medicare as a socialist system? The majority leader on the other side, saying that this is a program that he would not be part of in the free world? Mr. Gingrich, talking about it withering on the vine? Mr. D'Amato, from the other body, talking about how with this new Dole tax plan, that he believes and knows that there are going to have to be drastic cuts in the Medicare program? It is a question of who do you trust to fix the program, a good program that could be made better. That is what this is about. And that is why I think it is an education process for the American people to understand this debate and truly know who wants to fix it, and who ultimately would like to see it done in to their peril. So I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity of having this conversation with all of you tonight on this issue.

Ms. DeLAURO. So the point is, where do we need to go, as my colleague from New Jersey said, with regard to improving Medicare. We need to look at home health care, which can save us money. We need to look at the cost of prescription drugs to bring that cost down. What is it, what is it in the mindset that says, let us unravel the one system that we have that is approaching coverage of most of the population, thereby holding the cost down and not build on it but rather unravel it and go back to where it is helter-skelter, when we ought to be moving in the direction of trying to cover more and more people today who are without insurance and to look at preventative measures. It is, as our colleague from Michigan said, it is a bridge to the past and not the bridge to the future that we need to be making in order to assure affordable good quality health care for everyone in this country.

Ms. DeLAURO. That is such a relevant point, because what all of the data indicates is that the point was, in terms of health insurance, that you spread the risk so that the more people who are insured and who are covered, that is the way that you bring costs down. When you are operating in 2 systems, if you will, with people who have it and people who do not have it, people who do not have it get their health care from somewhere and that cost does not go into a vapor. Everybody else who does have it picks up that cost. So the whole point has been, how do we get more people insured to lower the cost of health care. What we ought to be doing is thinking about that future, of insuring more people. We have only one system today where 99 percent of the population are covered, and that is Medicare for seniors. And one of the items on the agenda, the Families First agenda that the Democrats have proposed for implementing after January 1 is to see if we can try to insure children from zero to 13 so that we have got another pool of people covered for insurance, again, to give parents the peace of mind that they have the opportunity to get insurance for their kids and make that more affordable.

Ms. DeLAURO. It really is. I went to speak to the Milford Senior Center yesterday. They have their club today. There were about 200 people. And we were talking about this, and we were talking about the nursing home care. After it, a woman came up to me. She says, you know, she says, I rely on the nursing home. My husband is there. It was a very tough decision for her to put her husband in the nursing home. She said: He is getting wonderful care and they are taking good care of him. And she says: I would not be able to do that, I cannot do that if something should jeopardize all of that. That is what we were looking at. And, quite frankly, my concern is that we beat that battle back one time. It was the American public, the outrage of the American public on what was going to happen. Now we listen to people over and over again coming back and talking about the same things again; that they are not----

Ms. DeLAURO. If the gentleman would yield just on that point.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, September 12, 1996, George Sweeney will be honored with a retirement dinner. George has served the New Haven Fire Department for more than 39 years. George's career with the New Haven Fire Department began in 1957 when he was assigned to Engine Company 4 at the Central Station. He served in this capacity until January 26, 1977 when he was promoted to lieutenant. While he was with Engine Company 4, he was commended by the board of fire commissioners for his actions at a four alarm fire at the Yale Art & Architecture Building on June 14, 1969. In the following years, George served with a number of companies including Hook and Ladder Company 3, Lombard Station, Engine Company 7, Lombard Station, Engine Company 10, Lombard Station, Engine Company 15, Fountain Station, Hook and Ladder Company 5, Fountain Station. In 1991 he became the acting supervisor of records and operations at the Motor Apparatus and Building Maintenance Division. Firefighting is a career which demands incredible dedication, courage and bravery, and a deep commitment to helping others. Firefighters are public servants in the truest sense. They risk their lives every day to protect citizens. During his tenure with the New Haven Fire Department, George was awarded a meritorious citation for his part in a heroic attempt to rescue two children from the second floor of a three story building. George's actions speak to his immeasurable sense of responsibility for the citizens of New Haven. George is also the recipient of three unit citations. He has been honored by the Connecticut State Fireman's Association in 1992 in recognition of 35 years of service and he was named Firefighter of the Year in 1995 by the New Haven Block Watch Association. George Sweeney has devoted himself and his life to a career as a firefighter for the city of New Haven. For over 39 years George has served the people of the city. In that time he has truly made a difference in people's lives, in some cases his efforts have meant the difference between life and death. I am proud to join George's family, friends and colleagues as they honor him on his retirement. He deserves our deepest thanks and appreciation.

Mr. DeLAURO

Mr. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, Newt Gingrich is absolutely right. He said, ``The 435 Members of the House should look at all the facts, should have available to them all the reports and all the background documents and the American people should have the same.'' Newt Gingrich said that in 1989 about the ethics report on then Speaker Jim Wright. And what he said then about the need for full disclosure is equally true today about the outside counsel's report on Newt Gingrich's own dealings. Don't just take my word for it. Today's New York Times calls upon the House Ethics Committee to release the report. The Times says ``If after all this time, Mrs. Johnson and her colleagues cannot rise above partisanship to act promptly on Mr. Coles' findings and make them public, they will demonstrate that this supposedly principled panel is little more than a charade. Stop the coverup. Release the ethics report on Newt Gingrich.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, September 15, 1996 the officers and members of Saint Paul Union American Methodist Episcopal Church will gather to celebrate the church's 150th anniversary. I am pleased to rise today to congratulate the St. Paul UAME congregation on this special occasion. The church has an incredibly rich history. The church traces its roots as far back to 1805 and developed from a strong tradition of grass-roots initiatives and organizing. The Saint Paul Union American Methodist Episcopal Church, as it is now known, has a history which begins in 1847. Organized in 1952 by lay Elder John Williams, it was originally called the Ecclestial Society and was located at 47 Webster Street. The church was later moved to 69 Webster Street and renamed the African Union Church by lay Elder William Walker. Finally, in 1920 the church became the Saint Paul Union American Methodist Episcopal Church. In 1938 the city of New Haven began the Elm Haven housing project. St. Paul was located in the middle of the proposed project and a decision was made to move the church, intact, to the south side of Dixwell Avenue. The church was moved and completely renovated. The church was dedicated on May 12, 1940 under the pastorate of the late Rev. James E. Henry. The church continued to grow and in 1956 was assigned the Rt. Rev. David E. Hackett. It was the leadership of Reverend Hackett which facilitated great progress and growth of the church. During that time church property was improved, a financial reserve maintained and community services were expanded. The church also fondly remembers the tenure of the Rev. Dr. Clyde J. Bobo Bowman who was assigned to St. Paul in 1971. The Reverend Bowman initiated a community based ministry that sought to address the problems and concerns of senior citizens, the church's neighborhood, and the young people and children in the area. This community based philosophy is one that the church continues to espouse. The St. Paul UAME Church is a clear example of the important role of the church in people's lives today. The church gives everyone a place to find their spiritual center and to solidify and support their values. In addition to ministering to the needs of its own congregation, the St. Paul UAME Church reaches out to the whole community. The church tackles difficult social problems like drug use, poverty and violence. At a time when public support for government intervention and programs is low, it is critical that churches and community organizations reach out to those most in need. I commend the St. Paul UAME Church for leading the way and rising to the challenges of combating these social problems. I am pleased to offer my sincerest congratulations to the church on its 150th anniversary. I know the church will continue to be an important force in the lives of both the members of the congregation and the larger community for many more years to come.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, Bob Dole's economic plan does spell disaster for the millions of Americans who depend on Medicare. His proposal for a close to $600 billion tax cut could result in $300 billion in Medicare cuts. That is not my number, that is the Congressional Budget Office which is controlled by the Republicans. It calls the cuts draconian. They say that Medicare beneficiaries would probably find their own costs rising substantially, that is a direct quote, if $300 billion in Medicare cuts were required. Mr. Dole says he plans to pay for this tax cut by closing corporate loopholes. Get a hold of the New York Times this morning where this is the following quote from the New York Times: During Mr. Dole's 27 years in the Senate, he has proved himself to be a master at engineering the very sorts of special tax breaks for constituents and corporations that he now decries. And recipients of those breaks in turn have been among Mr. Dole's most generous contributors. Let me say this to you, that he was also very proud that he voted against Medicare, 1 of 12 to do that. Who do you trust to deal with the Medicare system, Mr. Dole or the Democrats who have stood here to defend Medicare every single day for the last 20 months against the Republican onslaught?

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this resolution, I congratulate Ukraine on its independence and commend it on its outstanding progress since emerging from Soviet tyranny. Harsh Soviet rule tried the will and strength of the Ukrainian people, trampling free speech and worship, and threatening any who would oppose the repressive regime. But the resolve of Ukrainians was rewarded, and today, Ukrainians control their own destiny. Perhaps the most telling signs of Ukrainian independence are the legislative and presidential elections held just 2 years ago. Democracy is planted once again, and people can breathe free. For over 40 years, the cold war dominated international relations as the United States and the Soviet Union focused their energies and resources on attempts to outdo each other. During this time, Ukraine became a repository for Soviet nuclear weapons. Since being freed from Soviet oppression, Ukraine has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to nuclear disarmament. Ukraine joined international arms control regimes such as START I and the Non- Proliferation Treaty. Ukraine truly demonstrated its commitment to disarmament, however, when it chose to discard remaining Soviet nuclear weapons. Free elections and the rejection of nuclear weapons are cause for celebration. These milestone events help reinforce that yes, the cold war and its accompanying fear really are over. The United States must recognize the tremendous achievement of Ukrainians and reward their resolve with more than words. We must provide the help needed to establish free markets, strengthen democratic institutions, and ensure that Ukraine will continue on the historic path it has pursued since winning independence in 1991. We commend Ukraine on its independence, elections, and truly historic progress. At the same time, we pledge our steadfast support as Ukrainians build a free and prosperous nation.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Twice.

Ms. DeLAURO. I think one of the key issues is remembering, remembering this last 20 months and what it has been about. If the natural instincts of the Republican majority and leadership had been followed, we would have seen the single biggest cuts in education that the United States has ever seen. We would have seen the biggest assault on the environment, as both of my colleagues here have talked about, that we have seen since we started to try to do something in a bipartisan way on cleaning up the environment. Mr. Speaker, we would have seen the program that has probably been the most responsible for helping American seniors out of poverty, the Medicare Program, we would have seen that transformed into something else and leaving people who have worked hard all of their lives, people who only truly want to have a decent and a secure retirement, something that they have earned, we would have seen that program devastated. What is very interesting is that that was stopped, by the public primarily, by the outrage of the American public, and the Democrats in the House and the Senate and the President. But what is very interesting to note is that, and you can make reference to what happened in this Congress to nightmare on Capitol Hill part I; and I think, if given another chance, we would see return of the nightmare part II, not by my commentary but by what has already been in print by Republican leadership. The Speaker, saying that to enact a Dole economic plan would mean cuts in entitlements. The third person in charge of this House in the Republican leadership, Tom DeLay, in a response to columnist Mort Kondracke, when asked if they would do things differently or do them the same, talked about doing the same things over again. There has been recent commentary about the Medicare system being a Socialist system. The public in no way can feel that they can put their trust in people who do not believe in Medicare, fundamentally do not believe in it, who want to cut back on the opportunity for education, make it more costly for them to be able to get their kids to school and to jeopardize what their retirement security is all about. Mr. Speaker, one thing we totally have not talked about at all is the raid on pension funds. They were going to allow corporations to raid employee pension funds, not to utilize for health care or some other reason but for anything they wanted. It was going back to the 1980's, to the corporate raiders who wound up taking the pension funds, investing in savings and loans or junk bonds, and so forth, went belly up and put people's pensions at risk. That was on the table to happen. It was stopped. But it is good to review and to understand where their inclination would have taken this country, how they truly threatened the standard of living for working middle-class families in this country, and given the chance again, would do it again.

Ms. DeLAURO. Yes, I appreciate my colleague yielding. I just wanted to make two or three points. I think we have seen that Labor Day has come and gone, the August congressional work break is over, and as kids across this Nation are going back to school, Members of Congress head back to Washington for this final push, if you will, of the 104th Congress. In essence there is 1 more month of legislative work before the November elections. Sometimes, and I do not know if this is a fitting analogy, but for some people the thought of Congress coming back to work makes working families across this country feel exactly what many women feel at the beginning of the fall football season. It is kind of a complete and utter dread as to what else might be wrought on them. And after what they have seen with this Congress over the last 20 months, I think that there are very few or no one wants to see Speaker Gingrich and his leadership back at work because, quite frankly, there is just too much at stake for people in their lives and the lives of working families. The legacy, and my colleague talked a little about this, the legacy of the 104th Congress, the first Congress led by a Republican majority and the Republican leadership, their legislative agenda over the course of this last 20 months can simply be summed up in three words, and that is ``hurting working families.'' Sometimes we forget where we started and if the natural instincts of people have been followed in this body over the last 20 months. But today, and I am sure my colleague has read the press today, a new CNN- USA Today-Gallup poll shows that American voters prefer Democrats in Congress over Republicans by a 10-point margin. This is the biggest lead for Democrats since Republicans captured the Congress in November 1994, and this is what USA Today observed, and I quote: The polls suggest GOP control of the Congress gained in 1994 for the first time in 40 years could be in serious danger. The poll also showed that 60 percent of the American public has a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party compared to only 50 percent with a favorable opinion of Republicans. It is really time to take stock of what has been done over the last 2 years with just 2 months left of this session of the Congress. What the Republican leadership advocated, what they voted on, what they pushed through the committee, the kinds of efforts that you have talked about that were in the budget, that are coming back at us in another way over and over again, what they pushed through the committee, what they brought to the floor of the House; it is really quite significant and worth recalling. Let me just mention a few things. The Republicans started off the 104th Congress by attacking kids, cutting Head Start. Why should we prepare kids for kindergarten? They wanted to cut the school lunch program. Why should we stop kids' stomachs from growling? They wanted to cut the student loan program. Why should we help our kids with a college education? And they did not stop there. Then they skipped a few generations and went on to seniors, the Medicare battle of cutting $270 billion to pay for $245 billion in tax breaks for the wealthy. Why should we help seniors to pay for their medical care? Rolling back nursing home regulations. Why should we protect vulnerable seniors? You know, the notion of shutting down rural hospitals. Why should we provide the underserved areas with medical care? Then they went after the environment, my colleague pointed out. They let special interest polluters rewrite environmental laws. They actually had lobbyists sitting on the dias, which is only reserved for Members of Congress. Why should we have clean air and clean water? They cut funding for Superfund clean ups. Why should we get rid of toxic waste dumps? And I know my colleague in New Jersey has dealt with this issue over and over again. I have in my own community of Stratford, CT, where despite the two Government shutdowns and despite the initiatives to try to cut back on the Superfund they were able to continue with a project that can bring 1,500 jobs to Stratford, CT, immediately and then be able to build on that. They threatened to open up the Arctic Natural Wildlife Reserve to drilling. Why should we conserve our national treasures? And then they did not stop there. They went directly to working families. They stopped passage of the minimum wage increase until medical savings accounts were added to the Kennedy-Kassebaum health care reform legislation. It was very interesting on the minimum wage debate. It took all kinds of legislative and all kinds of parliamentary procedures in order for us to even be able to get the minimum wage up on the floor and try to get it passed. The whole issue of the medical savings accounts which was brought up, the medical savings accounts the Consumers Union has called a time bomb that will make health insurance less accessible and less affordable for many Americans. But the public did not support the Republicans' leadership effort to hurt children, and they do not support these efforts to hurt seniors. What we will take a look at in the new proposal, this economic plan proposed by Bob Dole, is about close to $600 billion in a tax cut. If you had to take, if you had to look at and if they had to look at cutting Medicare in order to provide for a $245 billion tax break for the wealthiest, where do they have to go to deal with $600 billion in a tax break? I know my colleagues from New Jersey and I do support tax cuts for working families. Let us take a look at how we can help working families with education, with doing, you know, helping people who are going to sell their homes without having to pay a capital gains tax, providing families with a $10,000 tax deduction in order to get their kids to school or provide for education or for skills and education training. Those are the kinds of things. The HOPE scholarships, $1,500 over 2 years, a 2-year period of time, where if a child maintains a B average and stays drug-free that they will be able to get some education help. These are the kinds of ways we need to point, directly point at working families in trying to help them, not a $600 billion, you know, tax break that will wind up going after seniors once again.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today we begin the final push of the 104th congressional session, and to welcome the Republican leadership back, we have a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that shows that voters prefer the Democrats in Congress over Republicans by a 10-point margin. The reason for the American people rejecting the Gingrich Republican revolution and turning toward the Democrats' families first agenda is that the Republican leadership have their priorities backward. The American people do not support Republican efforts to cut Medicare, and the people do not support Republican efforts to cut student loans, and the American people do not support efforts to roll back environmental protections. And mostly, the American people do not support a Congress that puts their needs far below the desires of the most wealthy in our society. Democrats are committed to fighting for working families; that is why they developed the families first agenda. It includes legislative proposals that would put Congress on the right track toward solving the problems that families face in their everyday lives. The Republican leadership should spend the rest of this session working for families instead of against them.