Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank my colleague. It is I guess actually true, out of the mouths of babes, all of us have had that wonderful experience of reading to youngsters in classrooms, and I think the gentleman shares the same feeling. You walk out of the classroom and you feel you really have accomplished something, that you are not just taking up space, that in fact you really have tried to give something back when you watch those youngsters with their eyes so high and just absorbing all of that. And to think some of that could really be gone. A point you have made, which I think is a very important one and I think people are going to understand this very quickly, is that if Federal dollars are taken away, you have one or two things happening: Either the State has to pick them up in some way, which deals with increases in taxes, or the services go. In both instances, it is a hardship. Certainly if the services go and some of the programs go, it is more than a hardship. It is really, if you will, eating our young. I love that booklet. I think that is terrific. Those kinds of things you keep right by your desk in your office to remind you why you are here. That is terrific.

Ms. DeLAURO. Amen. Thank you very, very much, and what we need to do is one more time introduce that 1 percent until the education is 10 percent of what our budget is about. That is when we really will be doing the job we were sent here to do, to make sure there is a future for our kids. I would like to ask my colleague now from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, to talk about, I think, a recent experience he had with kids and to let us hear his story.

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank my colleague, Mr. Speaker. My colleague has spent a lifetime and his professional lifetime in this body focused in on this area of being part of the education committee. It is truly hard to believe sometimes that we would wreck education, which is, as we know, the key to the future, to the success of this Nation, to the success of individuals. Each succeeding generation has wanted to pass on increased opportunities in this area. We are finding ourselves in the position, I think, parents are finding themselves in the position today where they are saying that their kids are not going to have the same kinds of opportunities that they had. Chief among those opportunities are the opportunities to increase their ability through education, whether it is higher education or whether it is vocational education, but a route in which we allow people to aspire and to dream, if you will. I am really proud to stand with my colleagues here tonight in staunch opposition to the Republican leadership's plan to shut the door on educational opportunity to America's working families. Speaker Gingrich likes to portray the Republican budget as part of a revolution. There is nothing new here. This is, it is not the least bit revolutionary. It is nothing new, and it is not revolutionary. It is, quite honestly, the same old trickle down economics of old, which is that you provide a tax break for the wealthiest in our Nation, and that is paid for by limiting the opportunities of working middle-class families in this country. I started this hour by telling my own story, which is about my folks and their beginnings. My dad is an immigrant; my mother working in the old sweatshops and her admonition to me which was: Take the opportunity for an education, so that you will not have to do this. That is essentially what we are denying to parents today; their ability to help and provide their kids with a future. That is wrong. That is something all of us here tonight are going to oppose and we hope that the American public will join us in that opposition. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleagues for participating in this conversation tonight.

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman very much, and let us get the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey] engaged in this conversation and get some of her thoughts and comments on what has been said in some other areas.

Ms. DeLAURO. The gentleman's comments are about hopes, and dreams, and aspirations, which is really what it is all about, and, you know, just in one other areas I have just got to mention we have had a program for the last 2 or 3 years called a school to work, school to career. These are youngsters who are not going to go on to a 4-year liberal arts college, and that is probably the majority of our kids today, that is the circumstance they find themselves in, and we have not, as a nation, focused in on what to say to them that we really do value, that you want to go from school to work. We want to help you do that. And what we are turning around and saying is forget it, you know. Your hopes, and dreams, and aspirations really do not mean very much in the scheme of things, and we have got other fish to fry. We have got other folks to take care of, and it is a heck of a letdown to kids, and I think that you just capture what, you know, people's feelings are.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am really very proud to join with several of my colleagues tonight to engage in a discussion, in a dialogue, about an issue that really is near and dear to the hearts of, I think just about all Americans, and that is the whole issue of education and the education of children and what the future of this country is all about. I am the daughter of immigrant parents who, quite frankly, could only dare to dream that someday their daughter would sit in the House of Representatives. My father came to this country as an immigrant, and my mom worked in a dress shop in the old sweatshops, if you will, for most of her life in order to provide me the opportunity to be able to go to school. I can remember going to that dress shop to meet her every day after school, and I would complain because, as all kids, I wanted to be outside. I did not want to be in a noisy place, and it was dirty. I remember those women, though. I remember them with their backs bent over their sewing machines just trying to pump out the dresses as quickly as they could so that they could provide for their family. My mother would say to me when I would complain, ``Take the opportunity for an education so you don't have to do this.'' Now, that is my mother's story, which is multiplied thousand and thousands of times around this country and this body that we all serve in here. The fact is that that is what the American dream is about. It is being able to provide your kids with the future and have them have opportunities that you may not have had or to have the same opportunities. What we are looking at in the House and what myself and my colleagues want to talk about a little bit tonight is, as this House of Representatives embarks on a process over the next few weeks, we are going to urge people to really pay very careful attention to the Republican proposals that are, in fact, going to slash education funding, slash that opportunity that so many of us were given to be able to go to school, to get an education, to expand our horizon, and they are going to slash that education funding by making incredibly devastating cuts in Federal student aid, education and training programs and the total elimination of the very cost-effective direct lending program. These are very shortsighted cuts. They are going to shut that door. It is going to close the educational opportunities for working families in this country. So many of us have this opportunity through the use of student loans. These cuts not only jeopardize our Nation's economic competitiveness but they destroy the hopes and the dreams of working families who struggle to build a better future for their families, for their kids, and, quite frankly, what is most disturbing about the cuts in education is that they are going to finance, I mean, this is the worst of all possible reasons, to make cuts in such a vital part of what our lives are all about, they are going to cut these education programs in order to finance a tax cut, a tax break for this country's wealthiest individuals, folks who have the opportunity. This is the United States of America. Part of that American dream is to do well, to be able to have the wherewithal to have the good life. That we all understand. But folks at that upper end of the spectrum have the wherewithal to send their kids to school; they can do it, and they do not need help that working, middle-class families do in order to be able to make sure that their kids can get those interest-deferred student loans. The whole budget debate is about priorities, about the deep cuts in education programs. These cuts, I will tell you, speak volumes about misplaced priorities; more than priorities, misplaced values. We are trying to once again instill values in people in this country and in our youngsters to understand the value of education and of respect and of working hard and responsibility. Those are all the values that people like my colleagues have been taught, that I have been taught, that we often lament that maybe are not there in today's society. But if we are going to look at what kinds of things we are doing here and where we place our values, how can we not place our values on education and making sure that our kids' futures are secure? So that the cuts speak volumes about misplaced values and priorities of the Gingrich revolution. Let me just tell you about Connecticut. The Republican cuts translate into a loss of approximately $325 billion in education and training funds over the next 10 years. Cuts in student aid and specifically reductions or the elimination of the in-school interest subsidy could mean 43,000 students from Connecticut would pay more for a college education, and by eliminating the interest-deferred Stafford loans, Republicans will add $5,200 to the cost of an education for the average college student in Connecticut. I have got to say $5,200 may not be very much to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], but I will tell you that it is a heck of a lot of money, and it is plenty to the 15,000 working families that rely on this subsidy in my district. According to the Department of Education, my district alone, the Third Congressional District in Connecticut, will lose $9 billion in student support provided through the in-school interest subsidy. That increase will devastate families like the Baxter family of West Haven, CT, a family that is struggling to put their children through college. This is the Baxter family right here in this photograph. I met Gail Baxter this spring at a student loan forum that I organized, and Gail told me that she was very, very worried about what cuts [[Page H 8783]] in the student loan program would mean for her and for her kids. It is no wonder she is worried. Gail is a single mother who has, this fall, four children in college, four children in college. That means four college tuitions to pay. The Republican plan would cost Gail Baxter and her family approximately $20,000 more this year, and it is all to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy. So if you want to take a look at what that bottom line is, the Baxters will pay $20,000 more so that the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans can pay $20,000 less. Where is the equity in that? Where is it? It is not. You cannot find it. It defies logic. It is not just parents who are worried. Students understand that the GOP cuts will be devastating to their futures. Let me tell you about one more individual in my district, and then I want to invite my colleagues to join this debate. Recently I met with students from Quinnipiac College in Hamden, CT. They organized a letter writing campaign expressing their opposition to cuts in Federal student aid. Let me just give one example from Laurel Drum of Quinnipiac College. She writes, ``Recently reports suggest you are considering the biggest cuts in the history of student aid,'' and, in fact, that is right, ``the biggest cuts in the history of student aid, and while I applaud congressional efforts for responsible deficit reduction, cuts in student aid just do not make sense. Student aid actually saves taxpayers money by stimulating economic growth, expanding the tax base and increasing productivity. That is why every major opinion poll shows strong support for student aid programs.'' Let me just say that I am so proud of the efforts and the determination of my constituents in their ardent opposition to the cuts in education spending. They want Congress to continue vital Federal support for higher education, because they understand, quite frankly, they probably should understand as well as, and Members of Congress should understand this as well as every working family in this country, that education is the cornerstone of economic security. They get it, and what they are saying to us is, ``We elected you,'' and we have to get it, if we truly want to be people here who represent the interests of those good, hard-working, responsible people who send us here on their behalf. I would like to now really get my colleagues involved in this, and I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] to talk about her perspective on this issue.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton], who I think has really touched on what we need to be centered on, and that is what is happening overall to our children. I think that there is terrible great fear in our society today about what is overall, whether it is education or whether it is health, what is going to be the future of our kids, and I think that there is a lot of insecurity amongst parents and families today about that whole issue and that this--only these cuts reinforce the fact that we are fearful that our kids do not have a future. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and what I would like to do is ask the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Baldacci] to give us a little bit of some of his thoughts on this area.

Ms. DeLAURO. There is another issue which I hope my friend from Kentucky will mention, is to provide an exclusion from taxes for billionaires, an issue on which he has really been a leading fighter to close that loophole so that those folks who are billionaires can pay their fair share of taxes. Let me have my colleague from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] share his own life experience with us on this issue of education and student loans.

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank my colleague very, very much. I just want to, before I introduce my colleague from New York, Major Owens, just mention a couple of things. One of the things that is going to be eliminated here is something called the direct loan program. And really by targeting the extinction of that initiative, what we are seeing is the Republican leadership in this House throwing away about $6.8 million in taxpayer savings. [[Page H 8788]] We ought to be trying to take a look at expanding a new streamlined approach to processing student loans. What we have tried to do here, and the program is working, is to take the bank out of this equation and, with the institution and the family working together, thereby making it more affordable to deal with the loan, what we should not be doing is limiting the growth of such a direct loan program or totally eliminating it after 1 year. There is just one other program that I want to mention, and that is the national service program, AmeriCorps. We often fault young people today when we say to them, you have got advantages, you do not give anything back, that you are taking only, that it is the me generation, you are focused, self-centered on yourself, give something back to your communities. My God, the national service program is exactly what was tailor made to say to young people, you commit to doing things in your community, helping in your community, providing a real service, not make-work, not a no-show, but providing a real service and taking an interest in your community. We will provide you and your family with some assistance in order for you to have an education. The Republicans want to totally eliminate AmeriCorps, national service, and the 4 million new service opportunities in the next 4 years alone. I would like to bring into the conversation someone who has spent a long time warring about a number of these issues and trying to expand opportunity for young people. That is my colleague from New York, Mr. Owens.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are cooking the books on their Medicare plan, but it is America's seniors who are getting burned. [[Page H 8733]] On Sunday, Speaker Gingrich stated that the Republican Medicare cuts would mean only $7 dollars in increased monthly premiums for Medicare recipients. But, the Republican-controlled Congressional Budget Office disagrees with the Speaker's new math. In fact, the CBO says that seniors will pay $56.50 more each month, not the $7 the Speaker claims. But, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have developed a new accounting device called unspecified future cuts. Unspecified future cuts means that Republicans can claim $80 billion in savings, without telling the American people where that money is coming from. It is time for the Republican leadership to stop playing games and to come clean with the American people about its plan to cut $270 billion from Medicare to pay for a tax cut to the wealthy.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this unnecessary and ill-conceived bill. We face serious issues regarding national retirement policy. But today, we are not considering ways to strengthen private pensions or how to ensure a secure retirement for our Nation's seniors. Instead, we are wasting time and energy on a bill to address a problem that does not exist. Investment by pension fund managers in Economically Targeted Investments, or ETI's, is not the problem. This bill is a smokescreen. It is simply a way for Republican Members, quite frankly, to divert attention away from the real issues facing seniors, like Republican plans to make $270 billion in cuts to Medicare, and it is not going to work. Much attention has been focused on the Labor Department's interpretive bulletin issued in June 1994. This bulletin sought to answer a question asked for over 15 years by many pension fund managers. These fund managers asked if they could consider factors in addition, I repeat in addition to the return to the plan when choosing among alternative investments. The Labor Department answered as it always has: pension fund investments must be based on the return to the plan. Only if the returns of different investments are comparable can fund managers give weight to other factors. So that investment, first, must pass muster; risk and return characteristics are first and foremost. The Labor Department's interpretive bulletin simply clarifies this policy in response to questions from pension fund managers. It does not, I repeat it does not, require investment in ETI's. The bill before us today is a needless attack on ETIs. But that is not all. It is much worse. It would prohibit the Labor Department from even providing information about ETIs. It is a gag rule. The Department would not even be permitted to answer questions from well-intentioned pension fund managers seeking to comply with the law. What will a fund manager do if he or she might be subject to a lawsuit for considering an investment's additional economic benefits and cannot consult the Labor Department in any way? That fund manager will steer funds away from many of the investments our country most needs to make--investments in our infrastructure, in our cities, and to provide badly-needed jobs. Worse, this bill encourages pension plan managers to invest in foreign countries instead of the United States. It defies common sense to advocate policies that make it easier for pension plans to invest in Europe over America. Already, American pension funds are seeking to increase foreign investments. Mr. Chairman, this bill amounts to a full employment plan for pension lawyers, that is what it is about. This Congress should be encouraging small business start ups, and investments in infrastructure and considering ways to make our senior's retirements more secure. This bill will do none of those things and amounts to a diversionary tactic to distract the American people [[Page H 8749]] from the hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts proposed by the Republicans, I urge its defeat.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, September 10, 1995, many distinguished guests will gather in New Haven, CT, for the dedication of the Joseph Slifka Center for Jewish Life at Yale. This center, which commemorates and celebrates the vibrant history of Jewish life at the university, was made possible in part due to the generosity and vision of the Slifka Family. As a result of their magnanimous gift and the contributions of many other individuals, the Slifka Center will be a place for contemplation, historical study, and joyful exploration of the many facets of Jewish culture. Joseph Slifka, who passed away 3 years ago, was a deeply caring and compassionate man who devoted himself to his family, his community, and his faith. A former real estate financier in Manhattan, Joseph Slifka always gave generously of his time and resources, including donations of modern art to museums in Jerusalem and New York. The Center for Jewish Life is a fitting tribute to a man who believed in the importance of tradition and the value of quiet reflection. The creation of the Center for Jewish Life has, in all respects, been a labor of love, serving to knit together even more closely the Yale Jewish community. Indeed, the walls of the Slifka Center are inlaid with pieces of Jerusalem stone that have been carved with the names of those individuals whose tireless efforts helped make the center a reality. Designed and built in the spirit of inclusiveness, the Slifka Center welcomes all those who wish to explore and share their Jewish heritage. Both the Yale and New Haven communities will benefit greatly from the exciting social, cultural, religious, and educational programming that will soon be available at the center. In the words of Joseph Slifka's son, Alan, the Center for Jewish Life is ``a true gift for God, for country, and for Yale.'' It is with great joy that I join Alan, his sister, Barbara, and his mother, Sylvia, for the ribbon- cutting ceremony this Sunday. I thank the university administration for their strong support, and the Hillel board of trustees and Rabbi James Ponet for their strong and devoted leadership. Thanks to their efforts, the dreams of individuals such as Joseph Slifka have been fulfilled.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution to reject the recommendations of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. I support the base closure and realignment process and believe it has led to the orderly downsizing of our Nation's defense infrastructure, given the end of the cold war. The Department of Defense and the Commission have made a tremendous effort to carefully examine every base during this and prior base closure rounds. Nonetheless, I continue to believe the Commission made a shortsighted decision when it voted to close the Stratford, CT, Army Engine Plant. I believe that the Army has substantially understated the military value of the Stratford plant, and it has substantially underestimated the cost of closing the facility and reconstituting its capabilities elsewhere. The Stratford Army Engine Plant is the only place in the country where we build the AGT1500 tank engines and critical spare parts that will be used in the Abrams tank for the next 30 years. In my view, it is a tremendous risk to national security to close this plant and lose its unique capabilities. With no new tank engine in development, we need the Stratford plant to extend the life of the engines now in use; to build critical spares; to provide field expertise to resolve problems that arise in battlefield situations; and to quickly build new engines should that be required by a military emergency. I also remain skeptical about the feasibility of the Army's plan to reconstitute the dual-use technology that the Stratford plant has used to produce top quality engines for tanks, helicopters, hovercraft and commercial jets. The Army has proposed moving the helicopter work to Corpus Christi, TX and the tank work to Anniston, AL. But this is much simpler said than done. The same equipment and the same work force teams at the plant produce military and commercial products for both aviation and ground use. All but 2 of 11 manufacturing cells are dual-use, as is the vast majority of machines. Recreating this capability elsewhere will be expensive and time consuming. I also believe the Army has substantially underestimated the cost of closing the plant. This year, the Army itself recognized that our Nation's tank engine industrial base would benefit from continued operation of the Stratford plant as a dual-use manufacturing facility. In February, the Army announced that it would invest $47.5 million to downsize the facility, enhance engine durability, and initiate a Service Life Extension Program. The employees of the plant, the union members, and the management joined together to make this plan work--they are cutting costs, improving productivity, and diversifying the product line into the commercial marketplace. This dual-use approach would maintain the vital military value of the Stratford Army Engine Plant, while reducing costs to the Army by expanding commercial use of the plant. This would be the best option for national security and the best option for the taxpayer. It is hard to understand why the Stratford Army Engine Plant was recommended for closure when a promising plan for downsizing and dual- use manufacturing was already in place. I was disappointed by the Base Closure and Realignment Commission's recommendation to close the Stratford site and joined the plant's workers and management, and the community in making our case to the Commission. I still believe maintaining military and commercial production at Stratford would serve our country best. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution of disapproval.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure of joining Israel Bonds and more than 80 other community leaders from Connecticut who have come to Washington to honor Simon Konover. Mr. Konover has been chosen to receive the New Life Award, an award given to Holocaust survivors. The New Life Award honors those who have built a new existence for themselves after having endured the tragedies of the Holocaust. A small statue of a silver fist grasping the flame of freedom, the New Life Award recognizes the indomitable human spirit of Holocaust survivors and remember the 6 million Jews who perished in Nazi labor camps. On this 50th anniversary year of the liberation of Europe, it is fitting that the award be presented to Simon Konover, who emerged from the dark shadows of his [[Page E 1749]] own Holocaust experience, to forge a bright future for himself, his family, and the Jewish people. Simon Konover has dedicated his life to the cultural renewal of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. A tireless community servant and a good friend, I can think of no better person to receive Israel Bond's New Life Award. Simon, his wife Doris, and their four children reside in Hartford, where they attend Beth El Temple. Simon has volunteered much of his time toward the betterment of the Jewish community. Simon's tremendous motivation stems from his personal Holocaust experience. A survivor of the labor camps in Poland and Siberia, who also fought in the battle of Stalingrad, Simon has championed numerous Jewish and civic causes. He is the past president of the Jewish Federation of Greater Hartford, the Greater Hartford Israel Bond Campaign, and the Connecticut Society of Yad Vashem, an honorary life member of the Greater Hartford Jewish Community and the Hebrew Home and Hospital. Simon held the national vice-chairmanship of the United Jewish Appeal in 1987-88, is an overseer at the Jewish Theological Seminary, a director of American Organization for Rehabilitation and Training for immigrants from Israel, and a member of the Israel Bond's President's Club. As a founder of the Holocaust museum, Simon raised and contributed a significant amount of money to complete this much needed historical archive for people from all over the world. I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to Simon Konover for his endurance and his perseverance on behalf of the Jewish community and the people of Israel. This well deserved award could only be presented to a man like Simon Konover who has constantly worked to enhance the lives of the Jewish community and the people of Israel.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, September 10, St. Brendan's School in New Haven, CT will pay tribute to the many accomplishments of Sister Mary Antoinette Cappelli, O.L.G. After 19 years as principal of St. Brendan's, Sister Mary will be leaving this month to begin her responsibilities as a counselor for the Sisters of Our Lady of the Garden. As principal, Sister Mary devoted herself to bringing the best out of every student. As a result of her commitment to meeting the academic, social, and spiritual needs of her students, St. Brendan's quickly became a model of educational excellence nationwide. In 1990, St. Brendan's was selected as a Blue Ribbon School by the U.S. Department of Education for its academic excellence and commitment to parent involvement. St. Brendan's has received much praise over the years for its ability to meet the needs of a economically and racially diverse student body. I have had the pleasure of visiting St. Brendan's on several occasions, and have always been impressed by the infectious enthusiasm displayed by the [[Page E 1746]] staff and students. Sister Mary has created an atmosphere of caring and warmth that can be felt as soon as one enters the school. Born and raised in Italy, Sister Mary first came to Connecticut in 1962. Before joining the staff of St. Brendan's she was instrumental in the opening of a Montessori School in Middletown and taught with distinction at Stonegate School in Durham. Sister Mary is a refreshing reminder of the difference that one educator can make in the life of a young student. For over three decades, she has captivated both students and their parents with her enthusiasm and commitment to excellence. She will always be remembered as an inspirational and well-loved role model by her students and faculty. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to salute Sister Mary Antoinette Cappelli for her unshaking dedication to her school and her community. She leaves behind her a legacy of love that will never be forgotten.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer this bipartisan substitute amendment on behalf of myself, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward]. Our substitute amendment restores equal access to safe medical treatment for military servicewomen and military dependents who are stationed overseas. It corrects language in the Dornan amendment which would ban the Department of Defense from using funds in the bill to administer any policy that permits abortions to be performed at medical facilities except when the life of the mother is in danger. Mr. Chairman, the Dornan amendment is an assault on the woman's right to choose. It jeopardizes access to safe medical care for millions of women who rely on military hospitals overseas. Women who joined the military to protect our rights should not have to check their constitutional rights at the border. The Dornan amendment offered today mirrors language in the Defense authorization bill that denies access to legal abortion services for all women utilizing medical facilities outside the United States. This is an outrage. Women and their families have a constitutional right to these services, and their constitutional rights should not be thrown aside while they are under the care of military hospitals. Let me emphasize several points about our substitute amendment. First of all, the substitute amendment would not allow Federal funds to be used to pay for abortions, not allow Federal funds. The Dornan amendment overturns current policy that allows women to use their own funds. Let me repeat that. They use their own funds to pay for abortions in overseas military hospitals. These patients are charged the full reimbursement rate for same-day surgery, more than the cost, more than the cost of abortion services at private facilities in this country, in order to ensure that there is no Federal funding involved. Second, the substitute protects current policy under which no medical providers are forced to perform abortions due to the conscience clause that exists in the military services. No medical personnel would be forced to participate in or perform these services. It preserves the conscience clause. Third, this is not a new policy. Privately funded abortions were allowed at military facilities from 1973 to 1988, including all, but a few, months of the Reagan administration, and they have been permitted again since President Clinton's executive order of January 19, 1993. The ban that existed from October 1988 to January 1993 was the exception. The Dornan amendment is a direct attack on the rights of the American women who virtually work in serving our country valiantly and have put their lives on the line for this country ever single day. It is a backward step, and we must not allow it to move forward. I urge my colleagues to ensure that our female military personnel and their military dependents have access to safe and legal medical care. Vote for our substitute and defeat the Dornan amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would like to emphasize that this amendment is not about public funding and its is not about special treatment, it is about fairness. That is what it is about. The substitute amendment preserves the right to choose and it preserves safe health care for American military women. Women who serve in the military to protect our rights, to protect our liberty, should not have to check those rights, their constitutional rights, at our border when they go overseas to protect us. They deserve good quality and the best medical care and they have that right under our Constitution. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan substitute amendment and to defeat the Dornan amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeLAURO

Mr. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government is obligated to honor the constitutional rights of women who serve in the military overseas. The Dornan amendment denies their constitutional rights. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen]. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)