Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey amendment to restore vital funds for public education. The amendment rejects the bill's slashing cuts in public education that hit children and working families at every level of their academic development. This bill will deny working American families the great equalizer of our time, the opportunity of a quality public education. It cuts safe and drug-free schools. It kicks 15,000 children out of Head Start, denies help in reading and mathematics to 150,000 kids, and it limits the ability of colleges and universities to grant student loans to middle-class families. The Obey amendment honors the priorities values of working American families by making desperately needed educational investments. Education is vital to the productivity and the competitiveness of our Nation, both today and in the 21st century. Some of my opponents say that the Republicans have changed their tune from 4 months ago and have a newfound faith in the merits of public education. This is simply not true. Put families first. Put out kids first. Vote for the Obey amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word. I rise in strong support of the Lowey/Castle amendment to restore $2.4 billion in funding for the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control. The National Center for Injury Prevention is the only government entity that addresses the issue of injury in a comprehensive manner and encourages an interdisciplinary approach to decreasing the burden that injuries place on society. In the United States, 140,000 people die of injuries each year, and many thousands more suffer permanently disabling injuries. These deaths and disabilities lead to loss of productive years of life, as injuries are primarily a disease of the young and the leading killer of persons under age 44. Many injuries can be prevented, at a much lower cost than treating them. In addition, the severity and long term effect of injuries that do occur can be minimized through effective treatment and early rehabilitation. But don't take my word for it. Let me read a passage from a letter I received from Dr. Linda Degutis, assistant professor at Yale School of Medicine and the codirector of the New Haven Regional Injury Prevention Program. Dr. Degutis states: I have seen the increasing level of gun violence in New Haven and the surrounding areas. I have seen children die and adolescents face permanent disability due to spinal cord injuries and head injuries. Not all of these victims are victims of interpersonal violence. Many have attempted suicide. In the case of children, several have been unintentionally shot by other children, or caught in the cross fire between adults with guns. It is disturbing to see this on a daily basis, but viewing the effects of violence has served to strengthen my resolve to do something about it on a personal and professional level. Continued support for the Injury Prevention program would allow scientists in the field of injury control, like Dr. Degutis in New Haven, continue their work in preventing a disease that has its greatest impact on young people. Projects funded through the Injury Prevention Program have already had an impact in decreasing injury morbidity and mortality from recreational activities, fires, bicycle crashes, falls, domestic violence, and other injury events. Restoring the funds for the center in New Haven will provide the opportunity for areas of research that have been ignored and developing interventions to decrease the toll that injury takes on our citizens. What is tragic about the debate--and the attack on the Injury Prevention Program this morning--is that it is not based on the merits or quality of work of the projects funded by the Injury Prevention Program. It is a sell out to the gun lobby because of research that the Injury Prevention Program has compiled on firearm injury. These studies have found that guns in the home are actually dangerous to their owners. Stripping the funds for the Injury Prevention Program will not make the tragic facts about gun violence disappear. Nor will it squelch public outrage and concern for our children that face the threats and fears of guns in their homes, in their schools or their playgrounds. The Gingrich Congress, by voting to repeal the assault weapons ban showed its flagrant disregard for the will of the American people on this issue--all for the campaign money and political paybacks that come from the gun lobby. I urge my colleagues to support dedicated doctors and scientists-- like Dr. Linda Degutis in New Haven--and vote to restore the $2.4 billion for the Injury Prevention Program. The safety of children in this country should be the No. 1 priority of the people's House--not political paybacks to the gun lobby. Vote for the Lowey/Castle amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition today of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. While we should be investing more in education to give our children the tools of opportunity in order to succeed, the Gingrich Congress continues its assault on education. The central theme of the leadership revolution has been to deny working families and children in this country educational opportunities at every level of their academic development. And this bill is more of the same. The enrollment in public schools today is rising. Tuition costs for college are going through the roof and working families are being squeezed just to make ends meet. This Congress should be doing everything in its power to expand access to a college education, to maintain support for local schools, ensure that every child who walks into a classroom is healthy, fed, and ready to learn. This bill does the exact opposite. It slashes education. That is dumb and it is wrong. Let me cite the blows inflicted by this bill. Our national investment in elementary and secondary education is cut by $400 million from last year's level. The bill kicks 15,000 children out of Head Start. It denies 150,000 children needed help in reading and mathematics for next year. The bill stops Federal funding of school reform. Goals 2000, which enables teachers to reform our schools, to discover innovative methods to improve the academic performance of all students, is eliminated under this bill. It slashes safe and drug-free schools, putting children in my district in New Haven, CT at risk of violence in their schools. In higher education the bill would deny 191,000 students Pell Grants next year. The bill denies 96,000 deserving postsecondary students the opportunity to receive low-interest Perkins loans. It reduces funds to administer the direct lending program, limiting the number of loans available to students and working families for 14 colleges and universities in Connecticut. The Gingrich revolutionaries just do not get it. We have been down this road before. The American people have spoken out loudly and clearly in opposition to an extreme Republican agenda, yet it has reared its ugly head once again in this bill. The American people understand that the only way that we move competitively into the 21st century is through an educated work force. Educating our kids is primary to families today. Dismantling public education in this country is the wrong way to balance a budget. We should reject this all-out attack on education for middle-class Americans. Some of my opponents say the Republicans have changed their tune from 4 months ago, found faith in America's public education. This is simply not true. I call on my colleagues to reject this extreme antieducation bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Senate passed the minimum wage. Normally it would be on its way to President Clinton for his signature and in a short time--Americans everywhere would be benefiting. But not in this Congress--unfortunately here the will of the American people is consistently being undermined. Eighty percent of the American people support a minimum wage increase, today we learn that Republicans in the Senate are holding the minimum wage hostage. According to Congress Daily, ``Coming off a defeat on a controversial pro-business amendment, Senate Republicans further jeopardized final approval of a minimum wage hike by threatening to block conference action unless Democrats unleash their grip on health care insurance reform legislation.'' As my colleague before me said, they want to put in their special- interest medical savings account into the health care bill. This sounds a lot like, ``If you do not play by my rules, then I am going to take my ball and go home.'' This is a refrain that is heard in sandboxes. It has no place in the U.S. Congress. The Senate needs to get out of the sandbox, pass the minimum wage today.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, funding America's transportation needs is absolutely essential to the viability of our nation's business and industry. And for the most part, the House 1997 transportation spending bill recognizes this national priority for economic expansion and job creation. While the bill is $50 million below President Clinton's request for 1997, and more than $1 billion below 1995 levels, this bill does represent an increase of about $150 million from current year levels. Yet despite this significant increase, this bill eliminates funding for one of the most important and successful transportation projects in this country. Amtrak's Northeast Corridor Improvement Project will speed travel between Washington and Boston; alleviate airport and highway congestion and the associated environmental problems; and create jobs. The Transportation Committee recommended the elimination of Amtrak corridor improvement funds for 1997 because of the belief that Amtrak had a backlog of unspent funds due to unavoidable project slowdowns. Yet these funds will be expended by the end of the year. If this happens, Amtrak will not have money to complete Northeast corridor projects needed to bring high-speed rail to America. We'll have the opportunity to fix these cuts when the House and the other body meet to work out differences between our respective transportation spending bills. But the cuts in the House bill are harmful to America's workers, harmful to consumers, and harmful to business. Nearly every Member of the House of Representatives, myself included, supported Amtrak's efforts to end Federal operating subsidies for Amtrak by the year 2002. Yet these cuts are $1.2 billion below what Amtrak needs for operating self-sufficiency until the phase-out of subsidies. We cannot expect them to continue to operate a national system given these deep cuts. Amtrak needs to invest in order to strengthen future business prospects. Creating the high-speed corridor in the Northeast is just one example of how Amtrak can run more like a private business and create jobs and economic growth in this country. Let's give them what they need to get the job done so that they can operate more like other businesses. Let's not be shortsighted in our obligation to ensure that Americans have the best transportation system in the world.

Ms. DELAURO

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the gentleman who just spoke talk about how it took shutting the Government down. It was their deliberate action to shut the Government down twice, and to provide the American people with the pain that they felt in the United States Government being shut down. By their own admission, they deliberately shut the Government down. As for withering on the vine, we know whose quote that is. The Speaker of the House has talked about Medicare withering on the vine, that ``We cannot go after it in this round, but we go after it next year, so in fact it will wither on the vine,'' destroying Medicare for the people today and tomorrow who depend on the Medicare system. Also the gentleman from Florida spoke of Republicans balancing the budget. Well, my friends, on the contrary, the exact opposite is true. Republicans passed the budget in this House 2 weeks ago that in fact increased the deficit for each of the next 2 years by $40 billion. By their own admission, the Republican freshmen revolted. They said they did not come here to increase the deficit, that in fact they came here to balance the budget, and they revolted. However, some of them had their arms twisted so that in fact the Republican majority could pass a budget that increases the deficit over the next 2 years. Let us get the facts straight. Mr. Speaker, the adjournment resolution has been made necessary by the majority's failure to make the progress required under the Budget Act. This resolution is the perfect commentary for a Congress whose legacy is a failure to live up to its fiduciary responsibility to tend to the public interest. Half of the annual appropriations bills have not been passed by this Chamber. The Speaker and the Republican majority, they want to go home for a Fourth of July vacation. They shut the Government down again by their own admission today, and they had to do it. Mr. Speaker, last year Speaker Gingrich shut down the Government, went home for Christmas vacation, and now the Republican majority wants us to pass this resolution. It is a little bit like getting a note from home, letting them off the hook because they have not done their homework. This is the Republican revolution, and when will these revolutionaries grow up and take their responsibilities to the American people seriously? Commerce, State, Energy and Water, Treasury, Postal, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, the list of unfinished business goes on and on and on for the last 20 months. They have not fooled the American public where they have said that what they truly want to do is to cut Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. That is what the last 19 months has been about, and in the last month, they capped it off with passing a budget that increases the deficit. Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues, vote against this resolution. Let us stay on the job until the people's business is done in the people's House.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, China has enjoyed most-favored-nation trading status for many years. I have supported MFN for China for the past 3 years with the hope that the United States and China would both benefit from a cooperative relationship. In fact, the opposite has happened. China has engaged in unfair trade, pirated intellectual property, proliferated nuclear weapons, acted with belligerence toward Taiwan, smuggled arms into the United States, and engaged in human rights violations. Because of China's actions, I will regrettably oppose MFN status. China's trade status with the United States gives us leverage. We must use it to further American interests, interests affecting trade, foreign policy, American exports, and American workers. Mr. Speaker, I am voting against MFN for China because it is time to send a message to the Chinese and to our trade leaders, and I emphasize our own trade leaders, that more of the same from China is not acceptable. If our Government wants support for free trade, then it must insist on fair and equal standards and compliance with our trade laws. When that happens, there will be broader support for MFN. Mr. Speaker, China has enjoyed most-favored-nation trading status for many years. I have supported MFN for China for the past 3 years with the hope that the United States and China would both benefit from a cooperative relationship. In fact, the opposite has happened. China has engaged in unfair trade practices, pirated intellectual property, proliferated nuclear weapons, suppressed democracy, acted with belligerence toward Taiwan, smuggled arms into the United States, and engaged in human rights violations. Because of China's actions--I will regrettably oppose MFN status. China has gladly profited from MFN while continually flaunting international agreements and standards of conduct. China sends more than one-third of its exports to the United States while only 2 percent of American exports can crack the Chinese market. The result: we now have a $34 billion trade deficit with China. China's trade with the United States gives us leverage. We must use it--to further American interests--interests affecting trade, foreign policy, American exports, and American workers. I applaud recent efforts to win an intellectual property agreement to protect American products from state-sponsored piracy in China. I hope it will yield results. But more than that, the IPR agreement demonstrates how the United States can and should use its enormous leverage to protect American interests and further a genuine global trading community. The United States must not give China a pass on the tough issues. We need to use our trade laws to pressure China for greater access for American companies and goods. We need to take action when China knowingly aids in the proliferation of weapons and weapons technology. And we need to take steps to shield American workers from unfair and inhumane prison labor. I am voting against MFN for China because it is time to send a message to the Chinese and to our trade leaders, and I emphasize our own trade leaders, that more of the same from China is not acceptable. If our Government wants support for free trade, then it must insist on fair and equal standards and compliance with our trade laws. When that happens--there will be broader support for MFN.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on May 23, H.R. 3519 was introduced to amend the Clean Air Act. Its sponsor characterized his bill as ``minor,'' saying it in no way changes compliance timetables or standards, but ``simply provides more flexibility in doing so.'' I disagree. In short, the bill repeals the most fundamental aspect of Federal clean air standards--protection of public health. This bill is a polluter's dream. The congressional majority's vision statement for the 104th Congress states that Republicans support air and water that is clean and safe. But if you read the fine print, the majority's agenda says that they support clean water and clean air as long as achieving it can be accomplished cheaply. Everyone supports the bill's emphasis on the use of innovative technologies to achieve clean air standards. The problem with H.R. 3519 is that it eliminates pollution monitoring and turns off pollution controls except when the air is at its dirtiest. Under H.R. 3519, major sources of pollution would no longer be subject to regulation. The Federal Government would no longer enforce healthy air requirements for States and localities. In addition, the bill would give polluters 10 years to clean up pollution that is causing health hazards, including cancer, today. The fact is that this bill substantially repeals key provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments signed by President Bush, and the fundamental principles of the original Clean Air Act signed by President Nixon. The American public believes that the air should be clean enough to breathe safely. The American public also believes that the Government has a responsibility to set clean air standard which guarantee health protection. And the American public does not believe that the science of health should be compromised by cost alone. For 25 years, clean air health standards have been based solely on the best scientific evidence available as to the impact of air pollution on the health of people. Congress has provided that cost considerations are appropriate when determining how quickly those standards should be achieved. But now H.R. 3519 says that the health of people should no longer be the driving force behind our clean air programs. If the air is unhealthy but there is a cost of clean up, the health standards--not the pollution levels--should be modified. For 25 years, no serious legislation proposed compromised health science on the basis of economics. For 25 years, no legislation proposed that basic scientific data on health effects be ignored. Yet this Congress is likely to vote on a bill that changes the rules so polluters won't have to protect health. Americans need to send Congress the message that their health is not for sale to special interest groups. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Texas Observer article ``It's the Environment, Stupid,'' be printed in the Record so Americans know how important their response to this bill is to protect their environment and health. Thank you. [From the Texas Observer, June 14 1996] It's the Environment, Stupid (By Louis DuBose) Phil Gramm got the message in January when his pollster advised him that Republican voters don't trust their own party on environmental issues. Pollsters now trying to determine what will drive November's elections are discovering that environmental issues are a real public concern. Even Newt Gingrich is beginning to get it. The Speaker crossed the Potomac to salute environmental corps kid volunteers working on Roosevelt Island, and traveled to New York to embrace a panic-stricken wild pig on the ``Tonight Show.'' All of this to convince the public that Republicans are not enemies of the environment. And in Congress, the party is backing away from its assault on environmental protections--at least until after November's elections. But Congressman Joe Barton--two years ago Phil Gramm's choice to replace Texas Republican Party Chair Fred Meyer, after fundamentalist Christians declared Meyer unworthy--is an exception. Barton recently filed the ``Clean Air Act Amendments of 1996,'' perhaps thinking that a bill filed so late in the session would not attract too much attention. He got caught. Frank O'Donnell of the Clean Air Trust got wind of Barton's bad air bill and began faxing it to media outlets around the country. ``It is very unlikely that the bill will get anywhere this late in the session,'' O'Donnell said. He added that he suspects that Barton is staking out a position for 1997, when the law will be reauthorized. But even O'Donnell admits he is surprised by Barton's timing, which could create problems for Republicans in November. Perhaps Barton is determined, O'Donnell said, ``to complete the `Texas Toxic Trilogy.' First congressman Tom DeLay proposed repealing the entire 1990 clean air law. Then Congressman Steve Stockman tried to pretend dirty air doesn't exist. And now Congressman Barton wants to repeal the heart of the 1970 Clean Air Act.'' Barton's legislation is aimed right at the heart of the 1970 law, a milestone in environmental legislation that established clean air ``standards'' that states are required to meet. Barton's bill replaces specific standards with vague ``goals''--a small semantic change that completely undermines the philosophy of the country's most basic clean air law. But this is not merely an ideologue's philosophical assault on a law that passed with broad pubic and congressional consensus--after protracted negotiations that included environmentalists and representatives of industry. Barton has put together a technical bill, loaded with the same minutiae lobbyists wrote into Tom DeLay's bills--while they set up shop in his House office at the beginning of this congressional session. Consider, for example, the following verbiage: ``If, based on photochemical grid modeling demonstrations of any other analytical method determined by the Administrator to be as effective, the Administrator determines that the area is a down-wind nonattainment area receiving ozone or ozone precursor transport from outside the area and control of ozone concentrations or beyond the ability of the area to control because volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen from sources within such do not make a significant contribution to ozone concentrations in such area (or in any other nonattainment area), the Administrator may redesignate the area as in attainment or having a lower classification. Which, if properly punctuated, would mean: if it can be established that most of the pollution in a region comes from elsewhere--for example, chemical plants and refineries on the other side Galveston Bay--the air in that region could be declared clean. Predictably enough, such a declaration would make the air dirtier, because declaring an area ``in attainment'' means lifting environmental restrictions and allowing more local contamination of air already badly polluted by upwind sources. Barton's Bad Air Bill is filled with provisions like this one--in which ``attainment'' of clean-air standards is achieved by cleaning up the language of the law, rather than cleaning up the environment. When (to cite another example of Barton's peculiar logic) the EPA establishes air quality goals for a region, ``infrequent episodic variations in air pollution levels that are cause by weather'' must be excluded from any clean-air calculus. So in Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso that will mean the elimination of protections against dangerously high summer ozone levels--rather than the elimination of dangerously high ozone levels. ``To create ozone,'' O'Donnell, ``you do need sunlight, which cooks the stuff, but you also need a source of pollution.'' Barton's bill ignores those sources of pollution and assumes that, like the weather, man-made pollution cannot be controlled. The result of such twisted logic can only be more air pollution. More illogic? ``The [EPA] Administrator may not require that emissions of oxides of nitrogen from baseline vehicles using the reformulated gasoline be less than emissions from such vehicles when using baseline gasoline.'' Leave it to an EPA reg-writer to parse this sentence, which establishes that the quality of emissions are the same--when they aren't. It's just one small part of the bill's broad assault on reformulated gasoline requirements--a two stage program designed to lower tailpipe emissions. The first phase was put in place last year and regulations for implementation of phase two are not yet complete, and might not be if Barton, who once worked as a consultant for Atlantic Richfield, has his way. ``This will roll back a program already on the books that hasn't kicked in yet,'' O'Donnell said. Perhaps the loopiest provision--it's tough to pick one-- allows pollution control devices voluntarily installed ``prior to the designation of the area as a non-arraignment area to be credited as additional reductions. * * *'' But if air pollution in a region is too high, how does a pollution- control device already in place and working reduce it any further? Or is ``to be credited as'' what this is all about? To be fair, not every provision in the bill is as circumspect as those already cited. A straightforward, two- line change extends from five to ten years the time in which a plant can operate without being subject to permit revisions; some revisions simply change must to may--for sanctions or requirements. And no bill like this one would be complete without the standard ``cost-benefit-analysis'' provision. Barton would ``require'' regulators to prove that ``the incremental costs of attaining [a] standard do not exceed the incremental benefits of attaining the standard.'' These provisions always provide an advantage to industry, which can provide exact figures of retrofitting a refinery with pollution control devices, then challenge whoever represents the public interest these days to predict and calculate long-term savings in public health, and quality of life--which has no dollar-equivalent market value. What's driving Joe Barton's attempt to dismantle the Clean Air Act? The odd configuration of his Central Texas district provides him a completely safe seat, which he won by seventy- six percent in the last election; he's a true believer in the conservative agenda, and he's an engineer who understands this stuff better than, say, the average consumer of air. Yet it seems impolitic for someone who ran as the Washington candidate for the state Republican Party chair in 1994 to burden his party with another bad environmental bill--just as the 1996 election campaigns get underway. Maybe Tom Pauken, the fundamentalist Christian (charismatic Catholic variety) who defeated Barton two years ago, was correct when he argued that Barton was too much a Washington insider--too influenced by ``inside the Beltway culture.'' Pauken got it almost right during his fervent three-day state convention campaign. But the Washington culture he derided as the culture ``of big government'' is really the culture of big corporations. After twelve years in Congress Joe Barton understands that culture. And he has engaged in a bit of cost-and-benefit analysis that reads something like this: It costs him nothing to carry a bad environmental bill. The benefits, in contributions from the polluters PACs listed below, simply outweigh what his legislation will cost his party--and the breathing public. Selected polluter PAC supporters of Congressman Joe Barton, 1995-1996 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc..................................$1,000 Alabama Power Company/Southern Company..............................250 American Electric Power Company.....................................500 American Portland Cement Alliance, Inc............................1,000 American Trucking Association.....................................2,000 Amoco Corporation.................................................1,000 Arizona Public Service Company......................................500 Ash Grove Cement Company............................................500 Atlantic Richfield Company........................................2,000 American Gas Association..........................................1,000 Baltimore Gas and Electric Company................................1,000 BP America........................................................1,000 Burlington Resources/Meridian Oil.................................1,500 Carolina Power & Light Company....................................1,000 Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition...................................1,000 Centerior Energy Corporation........................................250 Chrysler Corporation..............................................1,000 COALPAC/National Mining Association...............................1,000 Columbia Hydrocarbon Corporation..................................1,500 Commonwealth Edison Company.......................................1,500 Consolidated Natural Gas Service Company, Inc.....................1,000 Consumers Power Company...........................................1,000 Dominion Resources Inc./Virginia Power Company......................500 Detroit Edison....................................................1,000 Duquesn Light Company.............................................1,000 Edison Electric Institute...........................................500 E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company................................2,500 El Paso Natural Gas Company.......................................1,000 Elf Atochem North America, Inc....................................2,000 Entergy Corporation.................................................500 Entergy Operations, Inc.............................................500 Enron Corporation.................................................2,012 Exxon Corporation.................................................1,000 Fina Oil and Chemical Company.......................................500 Ford Motor Corporation............................................1,000 Florida Power Corporation...........................................500 Florida Power & Light Company.....................................2,000 Flour Corporation.................................................4,000 General Public Utilities Corporation................................500 Hoechst Celanese Corporation......................................1,000 Houston Industries, Inc...........................................4,759 Intel Corporation...................................................250 Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.....................1,000 Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc................................500 Kerr-McGee Corporation..............................................500 LaFarge Corporation.................................................100 Marathon Oil Company/USX Corporation..............................1,500 Mobil Oil Corporation...............................................500 National Automobile Dealers Association...........................4,000 New England Power Service Company...................................500 North American Coal Corporation.....................................250 Northeast Utilities Service Corporation.............................500 Occidental Petroleum Corporation..................................1,000 Ohio Edison Company.................................................500 Pacific Gas and Electric Company..................................1,000 Panhandle Eastern Corporation.....................................2,000 PECO Energy Company.................................................500 Pennzoil Company....................................................500 Phillips Petroleum Company........................................1,000 PSI Energy Inc./Cinergy Corporation.................................500 Public Service Electric and Gas Company.............................200 Shell Oil Company.................................................1,500 Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America..............1,000 Southdown Inc.....................................................1,000 Southern California Edison Company................................2,000 Southern Company....................................................750 Southwestern Public Service Company.................................500 Tenneco Inc.......................................................1,000 Texaco Inc........................................................1,000 Texas Utilities Company.............................................500 Texas-New Mexico Power Company......................................500 USX Corporation.....................................................500 Valero Energy Corporation.........................................3,000 Westinghouse Electric Corporation.................................1,500 Weyerhaeuser Company..............................................1,000 Source: Federal Election Commission.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is at one of its all-time-lowest approval ratings in history. The American people have lost confidence in this institution's ability to lead and to do what's right. We must do all we can to restore their confidence and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can monitor our own House. Stores like the series currently running in the LA Times do not help us in our quest for the public's confidence. The LA Times article and I quote ``cited public records showing that six nonprofit organizations linked to GOPAC has raised at least $6 million in tax-decuctible funds that tax experts said appeared to have been used for Republican political purposes.'' The American people demand--and deserve--a Congress that is above reproach ethically and morally. Questions have been raised and they need to be answered swiftly, and thoroughly. No one is above the law in this Congress and no one has a right to be shielded and protected from legitimate questions regarding these very serious issues.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hometown of New Haven, CT, on the occasion of the first annual International Festival of Arts and Ideas. The festival brings together performers and thinkers from across the region and around the world to showcase the arts and discuss the ideas intertwined with such outstanding creativity. The festival includes drama, music, storytelling, dancing, and magic for children; discussions and classes focused on the ideas of the festival; and performance and works by Connecticut artists. New Haven's cultural riches enable it to host this tremendous festival, a festival that will foster greater appreciation for the arts and will spur discussion throughout Connecticut and the region. Drawing on the historic New Haven Green, internationally renowned Yale University and its many theaters and museums, the Shubert Performing Arts Center, the Audubon Street Arts District, Long Wharf Theatre, and many more treasures, New Haven will come alive to embrace a world of creative performance and thought. The displays and discussions will be highlighted by performers from Connecticut and throughout the world. I am particularly proud of the public and private partnership that brought the International Festival of Arts and Ideas to New Haven, the arts and cultural capital of Connecticut. Their exceptional support has been matched by individuals who have volunteered their time and energy to guarantee that the more than 75,000 visitors will see the arts, ideas, and Connecticut at their best. Putting Connecticut's best foot forward with the Arts and Ideas Festival will bring people to the region this week and throughout the year. This is a proud day for Connecticut as we kick off the first annual International Festival of Arts and Ideas. Congratulations.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, the Los Angeles Times details how House Speaker Newt Gingrich used six nonprofit foundations to funnel money for his own political profit. I quote: From 1984 to 1994, Gingrich and his cadre of key advisers used no fewer than six nonprofit groups to extend the reach of GOPAC, the partisan committee that fueled the successful 1994 Republican drive to gain control of the Congress. Together the foundations were part of a loose network of Gingrich-related enterprises dubbed Newt's world. This is outrageous, it is unseemly and it is illegal. It violates Federal tax law that prohibits exempt organizations from any, any form of partisan politics. Those are the issues, serious issues. The serious questions are, why has not the Ethics Committee pursued the ethics compliant filed in January 1996 that alleges the misuse of the tax-free foundation called the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Society? Why has not the committee forwarded these allegations to Special Investigator Cole? Can it be that in Newt's world the laws that the average person must abide by do not apply?

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, here they go again. As Newt Gingrich and his Republican leadership team slash Federal funding in such critical areas as education, the environment, and housing, they often refer to the growing need for nonprofit charitable and religious organizations to take on more responsibility in meeting critical needs in these areas. At the same time they are calling for these institutions to shoulder a greater burden, however, they are intent on destroying one of the newest and most innovative resources such groups have to increase their capacity to handle these additional responsibilities. The AmeriCorps Program strengthens traditional volunteering. From the Boys and Girls Clubs to the YMCA, America's largest and most respected volunteer organizations all utilize and vigorously support AmeriCorps. Habitat for Humanity, one of Speaker Gingrich's favorite nonprofits, has become an enthusiastic partner of AmeriCorps. They've experienced first hand how the full-time sustained presence of AmeriCorps members helps them accomplish more, while at the same time teaching them to use occasional volunteers more effectively. In my congressional district, this partnership was used to create LEAP--Leadership, Education, and Athletics in Partnership [LEAP]. LEAP was designated an AmeriCorps Program by the Corporation for National and Community Service in August. LEAP helps about 1,000 inner-city children build their learning skills through mentoring and community support. LEAP is best known for its summer program. During the summer, college and high school students serve as counselors in public housing developments where the kids whom they counsel live. The program has both academic and social components. The kids spend 3 days a week in a classroom environment. They learn things such as swimming, photography, and the like. Participating college students are from New Haven area colleges. The high school students are all from New Haven public schools and, in most cases, serve their own, or nearby, neighborhoods. With a grant from AmeriCorps, contributions from individuals, private and corporate foundation and other grants, LEAP's budget has doubled. And for every 900 hours of service to AmeriCorps, students receive $2,300 toward their student loans or college tuition payments. AmeriCorps enhances the work of traditional volunteer organizations, while allowing them to significantly expand their reach and enhance their accomplishments. Charities and religious institutions--the backbone of the voluntary sector in America--view AmeriCorps as a tool to increase their capacity to deal with social problems. I urge my colleagues to vote against the tide of funding cuts to programs that help our Nation's kids. Vote against the Hostettler amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Shays-Lowey amendment to increase funding for housing opportunities for persons with AIDS by $15 million. AIDS is a critical public health threat that continues to grow, with approximately 40,000 new HIV infections recorded in the United States each year. AIDS is the second-leading cause of death among young men in the United States, and the sixth most common cause for young women. AIDS has hit my own community particularly hard. Almost 20,000 people have contracted the HIV virus throughout Connecticut, and in 1995 Connecticut ranked sixth in per capita AIDS cases. AIDS is the leading cause of death for women in the city of New Haven. As a nation, we must remain committed to searching for a medical cure and a vaccine for AIDS, as well as treating those already afflicted with the disease. Although we are facing tough economic times, we cannot afford to decrease funding for AIDS research and prevention programs. Until we find a cure for AIDS, however, we must provide the most basic care for the men, women, and children that have been devastated by this terrible epidemic. I have fought hard to fund AIDS research, and I will fight equally hard to ensure that victims of this disease have a clean, safe place to sleep so that they can live healthier, longer lives. The Shays-Lowey amendment will help state and local government provide the basic necessity of housing to more than 4,000 additional families and individuals that need HIV-AIDS housing assistance in 1997. This amendment will also maintain the flexibility State and local governments need to establish short-term supportive housing and rental assistance, create community residences, and provide home-care services. The overwhelming cost of caring for victims of HIV-AIDS necessitates an increase in funding to the 50 metropolitan areas that currently benefit from funding for the Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS Program. Many people with AIDS are forced to spend their life savings on health care, and many are just a paycheck away from losing their homes. People with AIDS, from children to adults, should have a right to refuge, a right to basic care, and a right to a life with dignity. The Shays-Lowey amendment will help make this happen. I want to congratulate my Connecticut colleague, Mr. Shays, for the compassion and kindness and commitment to caring for our neighbors, which is what this amendment represents. And thanks also to my friend from New York, Mrs. Lowey for her leadership on this issue.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule. This Congress's continued attack on our Nation's environment is unforgivable. If this rule passes, the air we breath and the water we drink will become dirtier. The American people need to know that more than $800 million included in this bill for cleaning up toxic waste dumps does not exist. How can this be, you ask? Even though this amount of funding is printed in the bill, the congressional majority has attached strings to the legislation that will prevent the money from becoming available. The rule is bad for two reasons. First, it is budgetary smoke and mirrors. It contains money that doesn't exist. And second, it will prevent a vote on an amendment by Representatives Markey, Pallone, and Borski that would make this $800 million for toxic cleanups available at the beginning of the 1997 funding period. The rule for the VA-HUD bill prevents this vote, and that's why I oppose it. In my congressional district, children and families will continue to be threatened by a toxic waste dump because this trick of the light money for the Federal Superfund Program will not be available at the beginning of next year. For more than 80 years, Raymark Industries sent asbestos, lead, dioxins, and PCB's into the air. Stratford, CT became a dumping ground for Raymark's toxic waste. Children's parks and schools were contaminated. The Environmental Protection Agency has made great strides in cleaning up the Raymark site. It is on the verge of being a model of success, with development proposed for the site that will create jobs and bring in tax revenue. But this bill both cuts the cleanup program and prevents the expenditure of $800 million. If any American believes that these cuts will not prevent the cleanup of toxic sites like Raymark, they are being misled. I ask my Republican colleagues to help defeat the budget gimmickry and the antienvironmental extremism this bill represents.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment, which will provide additional funding to the low-income weatherization program. It is my understanding with regard to the NPR that the private industry sources say that they can cut operating costs between $30 and $40 million. So this $11 million is indeed a paltry sum, as my colleague from Minnesota has talked about. This is not going to break the NPR. It is just not going to do that; that is a fallacy. The weatherization program provides essential energy assistance, and it provides that in my State of Connecticut to the working poor, to the elderly, to the disabled, to low-income individuals. Without this help, many residents could not afford to heat their homes through the winter, and it gets cold in the State of Connecticut. Weatherization projects protect the homes from elements and make them more energy efficient. It reduces the costs for these individuals and their families. Last year's support for the weatherization program took a big hit from its regular funding level, and despite the President's request to raise funding of this program to $150 million in 1997, this bill would slash weatherization by 60 percent from 1995 levels. Let us pass the Sanders amendment, let us help working families.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today's USA Today reported that the wealthiest 20 percent of U.S. households earned more in the early 1990's than 60 percent of households in the middle class. The New York Times reported that the gap between the most affluent Americans and everyone else was wider than it has been since World War II. This is frightening news when you consider that the Republican budget passed in the House last week does not just increase the deficit, it also cuts Medicare to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. The Republican budget explicitly calls for $176 billion in tax breaks. The leadership will say that that is less than what they asked for the year before. But what the American people do not know is that the Republicans left a loophole that allows for unnamed tax breaks to be inserted later. The chairman of the Budget Committee, John Kasich, has said, and I quote, ``We expect a full complement of tax cuts. If there isn't, I will head south.'' No wonder the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, in fact, we do want to have portable and secure health insurance for people, and we want to have insurance companies prohibited from not insuring folks for their preexisting conditions. But let me tell the Members, under the banner of reform, what the congressional majority has done to the health care bill. Do not take my word for it, take the word of Consumers Union. Consumers Union produces the Consumer Reports that advise us on buying an automobile, an appliance, and not to buy a lemon. Let me tell the Members what they say about medical savings accounts, which is holding up the health care reform bill: The inclusion of the Republican MSA proposal in the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill makes the legislation worse than a wash for consumers. It takes us backward in our efforts to make health insurance accessible and affordable. MSA's are a time bomb. They turn the very principle of insurance on its head. Instead of pooling resources, they help healthy people accumulate wealth. I ask Members to be on their guard and oppose the MSA's.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment which will reduce Federal assistance for the fossil energy industry to help fund parks in urban areas through the National Park Service's National Recreation and Preservation Program. As the representative of an urban area in Connecticut, there are few greater needs then maintaining and improving parks. Parks benefit everyone in the community, but most of all, it benefits our children. Ours is a time that forces young people to confront adult problems at earlier ages. That's why it's so important that we give our children park space to have fund and enjoy childhood in a safe, clean, and secure setting. Many, many Connecticut parents in my congressional district have expressed to me the No. 1 challenge they face is having someplace where their kids can go after school. Parents need to know that their kids have someplace safe to go to. They need to know that their children are not out somewhere getting into trouble. Parks offer children the opportunity to have good clean fun and they give parents the peace of mind that their kids are okay. But this bill contains no funding for urban parks. Zero. Nothing. What message are we sending to the hardworking parents in this country when we deny them this one small opportunity to do something positive about one of their greatest fears? The Miller amendment is a responsible effort to respond to the concerns of America's hard-pressed parents. For the modest funding level of $10 million, we will provide communities the opportunity to help families cope with the day-to-day pressures that besiege them. Mr. Speaker, many families in this country are working harder and harder to make less and less. Barely getting by has replaced the American dream as the daily preoccupation. A two-income household was a rarity just a generation ago, and now it is the norm. These families have to keep up with the pressures of the job and raising the kids. It's about time they got a break. Investing in parks is but a small step to give them that break. Let's provide our communities with safe and clean parks for the kids of our urban families to go. And let's give America's parents a little peace of mind. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Miller amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Illinois for bringing this legislation forward. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Church Arson Prevention Act and urge its immediate adoption. Just last night, two more southern churches were burned to the ground--these tragic losses add to the mounting list of over 30 suspicious fires at black and multiracial churches in communities across the South in the past 18 months. Yesterday, I stood with religious and community leaders in New Haven, CT, to condemn these tragic fires that have destroyed sacred sites-- built on faith, hope, and love--and to stand in solidarity with the victims of these heinous crimes. This vital measure makes it a Federal crime to deface or destroy religious property and makes it easier to prosecute church arsons. Most importantly, the passage of this bill will give comfort to the victims of the fires--it will speed the healing process and assist with rebuilding of the churches and the communities that have been scarred by these violent and hateful acts.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the Iran Oil Sanctions Act strikes at the heart of international terrorism. For too long, terrorists have menaced innocent people around the world with their cowardly attacks. Sadly, we have seen the tragic effects of these attacks many times this year. Hamas bombings claimed nearly 60 lives in Israel while recent rocket launches by Hezbollah threatened the lives of those in northern Israel. Talking reason will not get us very far with fanatics who are willing to kill men, women, and children whose only fault was to be in a marketplace, on a bus, or on an airplane at the wrong time. We need to cut the supply line that allows terrorist groups to continue their disgraceful campaigns. We need to cut the flow of funds to these criminals. Iran and Libya stand out as major sponsors of terrorism around the world. This bill strikes at these backers of devastation and will limit their ability to underwrite acts of terror as they have done for far too long. I urge my colleagues to take this stand against those who bankroll cruel terrorist violence.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last week the Republican leadership twisted enough arms to pass their 1997 budget. And the result--broken arms and broken promises. Two summers ago the Republicans unveiled their Contract With America amid much fanfare. The Republicans promised to--and I quote--``work to enact additional budget savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the contract, to ensure that the Federal budget deficit will be less than it would have been without the enactment of these bills.'' Well--a lot has happened since then. The budget passed by the Republicans last week--by their own admission--increases the deficit for the first time in 3 years. The Republicans have come to Washington and done exactly what they promised they would not do--increase the deficit. I guess we now know for sure that the promises the Republican Party made to the American people aren't worth the paper they are written on.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am a very strong supporter of health care reform and of the Kennedy-Kassebaum bipartisan legislation to afford us a first step in dealing with some very important issues that face working families today on the issue of health care. There is a serious problem that we do have today that working families face, two particularly. First, is the whole issue of health insurance portability, that when you leave one job and go to another, what happens to your health care? People find themselves in that position today more and more without the opportunity of having the kind of health care coverage they need in switching jobs that is good for them or for their families. The second issue that is very critical and important is the limits on coverage for individuals who have a preexisting condition where insurance companies will deny the opportunity for health insurance to somebody who has a preexisting condition. Mr. Speaker, I have a preexisting condition; I am a cancer survivor. Ten years ago I was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Fortunately, today I am cancer free. But there is not a small business or some business who wants to put me in their insurance pool because it drives those premiums sky high. Or if I go out and get insurance on my own, it is 12 or $14,000 a year to cover people who are cancer survivors. These are serious health care problems. They face approximately 21 million Americans in this Nation. Too many families, working families, in my district, the Third District in Connecticut, pay their bills, they work hard, they play by the rules, and they do live in fear of losing their health insurance if they change their jobs. Too many of them cannot even get health care coverage because of this preexisting medical condition. This is not only bad health care policy, it is wrong. We have an opportunity with the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, a bipartisan bill that addresses both of these issues. As I said, this is a first step. It is not all that we want to accomplish in health care reform, but it is a way in which we can modestly reform the health insurance industry to meet the needs of working families. Sadly, under the banner of reform with this bipartisan bill, the congressional majority and the Speaker of the House today took the floor to talk about an opportunity for health care reform, but under this banner of reform what we have seen the congressional majority and the Speaker of the House do is to twist this opportunity, and in fact what would result would hurt consumers, and it would, in fact, increase the number of insured, the reason being the introduction of something called a medical savings account. Medical savings accounts are expensive, they are destructive, and they are bad health care policy. They encourage the healthiest and the wealthiest individuals to opt out of the insurance pool. They allow individuals to create private accounts to pay for their medical expenses, and in exchange individuals get a bare bones catastrophic insurance plan with extremely high deductibles. It is shortsighted. What it does by people opting out, the healthiest and the wealthiest opting out of the traditional insurance pool, you leave the most frail, the sickest people in that pool, thereby driving the premiums up. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you in order for the insurance companies to take care of these more sickly people, that cost goes up, and I am going to quote you a group, The American Academy of Actuaries, not a liberal group. These are the green eye shade people who look very carefully at the cost of insurance. Their estimate is that the process of skimming, getting the healthy out of this system, would result in a possible 61 percent increase in health care premiums for those who remain in traditional plans. If rates rise, people will no longer be able to afford insurance, and you thereby increase the number of uninsured in this country, certainly not what we want to try to do. Let me mention another group to my colleagues, the Consumers Union. These are folks who produce Consumer Reports; you know when you go to look at buying a car, an appliance, and you take their word for what is happening, you do a comparison look. This is what they said on Wednesday June 12: No health care reform this year is better than a bill with the Republican MSA proposal attached. The inclusion, and I quote, of the Republican MSA proposal in the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill makes the legislation worse than a wash for consumers. It takes us backward in our efforts to make health insurance accessible and affordable. MSA's are a time bomb. They turn the very principle of insurance on its head. Instead of pooling resources to take care of people when they get sick, MSA's funnel money away from doctors' bills and into accounts that will help healthy people accumulate wealth. Please, understand that we have an opportunity to do something good for working families and health care, not through what the Speaker of the House wants to do with medical savings accounts.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, late last night the House passed the 1997 budget, after an intense battle. The Republican leadership spent an entire day twisting arms to get the votes they needed. The result: A House Chamber filled with broken arms and, most important, broken promises. Some freshman Republicans who came to Washington to balance the budget ended up voting to actually increase the deficit. Two in particular, Representatives Cooley and Cubin, actually voted ``no'' on passing the budget and then switched their votes. They were joined by two other switchers, Representatives Allard and Metcalf. Clearly there was a lot of pressure in this Chamber yesterday. Pressure to approve a budget that increases the deficit, cuts the Medicare Program by $168 billion over a 6-year period to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy, limits student loans, taxes working families, and closes rural hospitals. Now the drama of the budget battle is over and the Republican leadership has made one thing explicitly clear: Promises can be made and promises can be broken.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, Mrs. Clayton, on this resolution. I rise in strong support of the resolution. I stand with my colleagues tonight to voice my outrage and condemnation of these church arson. As towns and neighborhoods begin that process of healing and rebuilding, it is imperative that we send a loud and a clear and a firm message to the perpetrators of these sick crimes that Americans will not tolerate bigotry or hate crimes. The perpetrators must and will be punished. History teaches us that we all have a stake in the battle against the forces of hatred. We cannot stand and be silent. We must speak louder than the voices of hate. Those voices encourage violence and have resulted in the destruction of churches, churches built on faith, on hope, and on love. I am proud to join my colleagues today in support of this resolution and urge its adoption. Further, I urge my colleagues to call on others to go to their districts, to speak out against the voices and the actions of hatred in this country. It is only through such acts that we can prevent further violence and destruction.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong condemnation of a tragic trend--the vicious burning of African-American churches in the South. On average, two African-American churches have been burned, under suspicious circumstances, each month over the past 1\1/2\ years. I rise to voice my outrage and condemnation of these church arsons. I also speak out on behalf of the constituents of the Third District of Connecticut, who are also deeply troubled about the burnings of African-American churches in the South. We share the national sadness over the loss of these historic and sacred spaces. As towns and neighborhoods begin the process of healing and re-building, it is imperative that we send a long, clear, and firm message to the perpetrators of these sick crimes--Americans will not tolerate bigotry or hate crimes. The perpetrators must and will be punished. History teaches us that we all have a great stake in the battle against forces of hatred. This quote about totalitarian oppression illustrates the point: In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up. (Martin Niemoeller, attributed) African-American leaders and members of the clergy in my district have spoken out locally to express support for their brothers and sisters in need in the South. These fires could easily occur in any region of the country. Today it is in Southern neighborhoods, tomorrow it could be in yours, or mine. We must speak louder than the voices of hate. Those voices encourage violence and have resulted in the destruction of churches built on faith, hope and love. The Reverend Lester McCorn, pastor of the Varick AME Zion Church and Auxiliary Bishop Theodore Brooks of the Beulah Heights First Pentecostal Church in New Haven in my district spoke out earlier this week. Rev. McCorn said: ``This is in on way an isolated incident limited to the South. It is old fashioned hatred.'' Bishop Brooks said: The South might be just the beginning . . . Anything can happen at any time, anywhere, at any point. While racism may be less hidden in the South it's just as prevalent and dangerous in the North. So I'm proudly calling on others to come together and to speak out against the voices and actions of hatred in this country.