Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. For Dottie and Julius, their lives would be destroyed by the cuts that are in the Republican plan to cut Medicare. Make no bones about it, these are cuts and the Republicans need to face up to that.

Ms. DeLAURO. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, why are Republicans cutting Medicare to pay for tax breaks for the privileged few? That's what my constituents Julius and Dottie Ruskin of West Haven, CT, who are pictured here, want to know. The Republicans have promised tax giveaways to the most well-off in our society, and now they have to pay for those promises by taking away from the most vulnerable among us--senior citizens on Medicare like Julius and Dottie. The Republicans claim that their budget plan demands fair shared sacrifice to balance the budget. But where's the sacrifice from people making more than $350,000, they get a $20,000 tax break under the Republican plan. Where's the sacrifice from all the beneficiaries of corporate welfare, the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means Committee refuses to close their special interest loopholes. The primary sacrifice demanded by the Republicans is from seniors like Julius and Dottie Ruskin who depend on Medicare. [[Page H5114]] This sacrifice isn't fair, and it isn't shared. The Republican plan would cut Medicare by $288 billion. The average senior in Connecticut would pay $1,167 more a year in out-of-pocket expenses by the year 2002. The Republican plan means that the Ruskins will pay more every time they go to the doctor. This plan will increase the annual deductible seniors must pay for doctor's services from $100 to $150. It will nearly double the monthly premium from $46 to $84 by the year 2002, an increase of $456 a year for seniors. It will add a 20-percent sick tax for home health care and laboratory tests. Let me tell you about the Ruskins. Julius and Dottie live on Social Security and his Armstrong/Pirelli Tire Co. pension for a total annual income of about $14,000 per year. Just last month his doctor visits and medication costs totaled $10,000. But their biggest concern is that the Republican plan may force them into an HMO and limit their choice of doctors. Julius sees six doctors, most of them specialists, and Dottie sees three doctors, and it is important to them to maintain these special relationships. The Republican plan threatens this trusted care that they now receive. The Republicans may be keeping their promises to the privileged few. But they're breaking our Nation's historic promise to seniors like Julius and Dottie Ruskin.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I just wanted to make a comment, and this was in the New York Times on May 2, it says let's separate the facts from the political claims and counterclaims. As a practical matter the Federal budget cannot be balanced the way the Republicans are talking about in 7 years as the Republicans promised without deep cuts in projected spending for Medicare. They would like to hide this fact, but it is the case. Cuts of this magnitude would raise the cost of health insurance to millions of retirees or reduce the services available to them. And a quote from Stanley Colender, director, Federal budget policy at Price Waterhouse, an accounting firm that said, ``realistically there is no way to come close to balancing the budget without cutting Medicare, Medicare benefits.'' Our Republican colleagues are trying to hide the fact that they are cutting benefits for tax breaks. No one has suggested that there are not reforms to be made in Medicare, and we can do that. We can deal with the fraud in the system and we can do some other things, but they cut first and reform second. I tell you, take a look at it and listen to what they are talking about, what has happened to our priorities in this country when the majority in this body is putting the whole issue of the corporate tax interests, those loopholes, those breaks ahead of the care and the health care needs of the people that we have talked about tonight and the people that we represent, people like Julius and Dottie Ruskin. I think that is the basic argument, what the Republicans have done, and they do not want to own up to it.

Ms. DeLAURO. Just one comment. I was struck today by a letter that I was shown by another Michigander, the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers] our colleague, and she showed me a letter that she received from a senior citizen in her district about the cuts, and it was a very poignant comment that this individual made. Lynn showed it to me, and she said, ``Read this.'' And the woman said, ``Maybe I have lived too long.'' An indictment of our values and what this Nation and this country is all about when this woman writes and says, ``Maybe I have lived too long,'' because, ``you are cutting my Medicare, my Social Security,'' and we are providing tax breaks for the richest in this country. It was a sad commentary, and I think one that struck me very hard, and I think says a lot about what this debate is about.

Ms. DeLAURO. They do.

Ms. DeLAURO. If the gentleman will yield, I think it is worth repeating just how outrageous it was what happened here a month ago with the repealing of the alternate minimum tax. And my colleagues from Michigan mentioned that. That was the tax put in by Ronald Reagan saying to the richest corporations in this Nation you have an obligation to pay taxes to this Nation. No one was complaining about that tax. Everyone felt it was fair and equitable, and the Republicans repealed it. It is $16.9 billion over the next 5 years, which says that the richest corporations in this Nation have a zero tax obligation to this country, and it is wrong, and that should not happen because they do have the lobbyists and the special interests that represent them in this body today more than they have at any other time in the history of this Nation.

Ms. DeLAURO. We are talking about veterans and Medicare and veterans' programs, and I just want to make reference, I have talked about Julius and Dorothy Ruskin from West Haven, Connecticut, earlier today. I think what we are all doing when we talk about the people who are our constituents, and people who are our friends, as well, people that we know--these people are not just names, they are folks that we know-- that they exemplify what is at stake in the whole debate here. Let me just say that these are two wonderful people, Julius and Dottie. They have given a lifetime of service to this country. Just on the veterans' issue, and I say this to my colleague from Vermont, Julius was an antiaircraft gunner on Iwo Jima during World War II. He received the Bronze Star for his service. These two wonderful people met each other in New Haven shortly after he came back from the war, and then they were married 5 months later. Dottie worked as a bookkeeper all of her life. Julius worked for 26 years in the Pirelli and the Armstrong Tire Company; once again, wherever it was needed in our Nation's service to deal with that industry. I will tell you what Julius has said, and I quote him, ``These are not the golden years.'' They are dealing with taking Medicare, Social Security, veterans' benefits from these folks. It is unfair. These should be the golden years for Maggie and for Enola and for the Ruskins, but that is not the case. I worry about, and I know that my colleagues here worry about that. Retirement today is often not golden at all. I think I remember my mother saying one time, she is 81 years old and relies on Social Security and on Medicare, that ``These are not the golden years but the lead years,'' and I think this is what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have tried to do to folks that we represent here tonight.

Ms. DeLAURO. That is what I find so disingenuous about the arguments the Republicans have made all day today on the floor of the House. They talk about that there is--they talk about Medicare increasing, and that these out of pocket costs we are making up. Their plan does not keep up with inflation. It does not allow for increased enrollment in the program. It is a very similar argument, if you will recall, that they made on the school lunch issue, where they said that they were going up 4\1/2\ percent, but in fact the program increases 6\1/2\ percent, so, by just very basic subtraction, you have a 2-percent shortfall. It is their same argument here, but what in fact it is, and it is the height of hypocrisy, to claim that they are not making the cut. We have all listened to them on the floor of this House. They have argued over and over again, and you mentioned, my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, mentioned the defense budget. They have talked about the defense budget over and over again, that it is being cut, when you treat defense in the same way, in the very, very same way. When the defense budget goes up, but not enough to keep up with the cost of a weapons system, the Republicans call it ``a cut,'' over and over and over again. That is why they have called for an increase in this budget for defense. When the defense budget goes up, but not enough to maintain the same troop levels that we have, the Republicans call it a cut. Why is it that now, in this debate, when Medicare spending does not keep up with inflation, and it does not keep up with the health care costs, or the increase in enrollment, do they say this is not a cut? It is hypocrisy and it is disingenuous, and we have to keep getting this message out to the American public.

Ms. DeLAURO. I believe it was $50,000 a plate.

Ms. DeLAURO. We have cold winters in Connecticut; you have them in Michigan and in Vermont.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the public is not fooled by the Republican shell game. They oppose Republican plans to pay for a tax break for the privileged few by cutting Medicare. Today's Washington Post tells us that 56 percent of the people are opposed to the Republican plan to cut Medicare. They are not fooled by Republican claims of fixing Medicare. The public is on to the Republican scam of using Medicare as a piggy bank to pay for their tax breaks for the privileged few. Rather than wiping out billions of dollars in tax cuts for large corporations, Republicans chose to slash support for the old and the sick. The Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will not touch the billions of dollars of tax breaks for wealthy corporate special interests. Mr. Speaker, let us go after the billions in corporate tax breaks before we stick a ``sick tax'' on our parents and grandparents.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in strong support of the Boehlert amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert amendment to protect the wetlands that are vital both to our environment and to our economy. Wetlands are life-sustaining filters of our natural world--they remove pollutants from our water and provide critical habitats for fish, plants, and other wildlife. I believe we must maintain strong protections for our wetlands. Like many of my colleagues, I also believe we need to expedite the wetlands permitting process and provide more consistency. This amendment does that. But the bill before us is much too extreme. Rather than fix wetlands regulations it guts them entirely. This bill puts at risk as much as 80 percent of all wetlands in this country. In my home State of Connecticut, more than half the wetlands would be endangered under this bill. More than 97,000 acres of Connecticut's wetlands could be lost. This is bad environmental policy and it is bad economic policy. I know this firsthand from the experience with Long Island Sound in my district and State. Wetlands serve to filter out nutrients and toxics that otherwise would end up in Long Island Sound. Our current policies have allowed us to successfully restore more than 1,500 acres of critical tidal wetlands along Long Island Sound. The result is cleaner water in the sound and a substantial reduction in beach closings along the sound in Connecticut, from 292 in 1991 to 174 in 1993. Wetlands are also vital to the fisheries industry that is so important to my home State of Connecticut. Connecticut is second only to Louisiana in oyster farming. This industry depends on wetlands to provide necessary food and habitat for spawning. In Connecticut, oyster farming is responsible for more than 400 jobs and contributes $200 million to the economy annually. The destruction or degradation of our wetlands would have a devastating impact on this industry. Wetlands are a precious commodity. I urge my colleagues to protect this valuable resource and support the Boehlert amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, our Republican colleagues tell us they want to fix Medicare. But I find it curious that fixing Medicare was never a Republican priority until they needed to pay for a $345 billion tax break for the wealthy. Even now the Republicans have failed to put forth a concrete plan that will ensure the long-term solvency of Medicare without compromising health care costs and quality for our Nation's seniors. All the Republicans have put forward is a proposal to cut Medicare by $285 billion. This plan is all cuts and no reform. This convenient discovery of a Medicare crisis is nothing but a smokescreen for the real Republican goal: They want to use Medicare as a piggy bank for their tax giveaway to the wealthiest 1 percent of the taxpayers. The GOP budget takes away $1,060 in Medicare benefits from seniors on fixed incomes to pay for a $20,000 a year windfall to those Americans making over $350,000. Courageous? Hardly. And, what of the Republican plan for reform? While the Republicans don't mind being specific about tax giveaways and Medicare cuts, they've [[Page H4957]] taken a Let's Make a Deal approach to Medicare reform. They've given us door No. 1, door No. 2, and door No. 3, but they want to pass the buck on who makes the painful choices. Reardless, it's clear that seniors will be stuck with the booby prizes. Secret documents from the House Budget Committee show that the Republican plan would force seniors to pay more in deductibles, premiums, and copayments. According to House budget committee documents, options the GOP has proposed would: Increase the deductible that beneficiaries must pay for doctors' services before Medicare coverage begins. The annual deductible, now $100, would be raised to $150. Nearly double the monthly $46 premium to $84 by the year 2002. That would be an increase of $456 a year for seniors--just in increased monthly premiums. Charge co-payments of 20 percent for home health care and laboratory tests. Republicans call these extra costs for seniors part of the fair shared sacrifice needed to balance the budget. But there's nothing fair and nothing shared about this sacrifice. All the sacrifice will come from seniors, many on fixed incomes who simply can't afford these extra costs. And the benefits go primarily to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts. It's no wonder that Republican Representative George Radanovich of California said the following: ``If we had come out with this budget as our Contract, they wouldn't have voted us in.'' Amazingly, while some Republicans are honest enough to admit that balancing the budget will be painful, Speaker Gingrich claims that $283 billion in Medicare cuts will be painless. The Speaker wants to have it both ways: He claims that the Republican plan saves money and balances the budget, and in the same breath he also claims that this plan increases Medicare spending. These claims beg a simple question: If the Republicans aren't cutting Medicare, then where are the savings? True, overall Medicare spending in the year 2002 will be more than it is today. But the spending level in the Republican plan falls woefully short of keeping pace with health care inflation or with increased enrollment in the program. The consequence of the Republican plan will be reduced benefits, higher costs, or both. Republicans know this is the case and it's time to come clean with the American people. These drastic cuts in Medicare have come as a surprise to many Americans. Even to many Americans who voted in the new Republican majority in 1994. Remember the GOP ``Contract With America''? Medicare cuts weren't included in the Republican blueprint. But now that the Republicans have given away all the goodies of the Contract in the first 100 days, they need to find someone to pay for them. And seniors on Medicare are a convenient target. That's what this is all about. Promises made, promises kept--that's been the Republican rallying call of late. But it seems that Republicans have forgotten our solemn promises to America's seniors.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, Republicans love to get up here everyday and talk about promises made and promises kept, but it seems that my GOP colleagues have forgotten our sacred promise to take care of America's senior citizens. In fact, under the GOP budget proposal, released yesterday, seniors take a double hit. First, Republicans cut health care for seniors. The GOP budget reduces Medicare spending by $283 billion over 7 years--a 25-percent reduction in the year 2002. Then, to make matters worse, Republicans turn around and reduce Social Security benefits for seniors by $24 billion between 1999 and 2002. Now, Speaker Gingrich calls these cuts painless. But, they are not painless to the millions of seniors who rely on Medicare and Social Security to help pay the bills and make ends meet. Republicans promised to protect Medicare. Republicans promised that Social Security would be off the table during this budget debate. Promises made, promises broken.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, there is a loud shattering sound all over Capitol Hill today as the Republicans rush to break our Nation's historic contract with its senior citizens. House Republicans today make it official: They want to cut Medicare and Medicaid by $464 billion in order to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. And now they have added a new ingredient to this sickening stew. Now House Republicans want to redefine the Consumer Price Index and lower cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security recipients. So much for their promise to keep Social Security off the table. In short, the Republican plan squeezes seniors from both ends. Seniors would have to pay more for health care, and they would be less able to afford that increase because they would get a smaller Social Security COLA. Altogether, this plan would cost 37 million seniors $900 more a year so a lucky 1.1 million of the wealthiest taxpayers can enjoy a $20,000 bonus. The Republican plan does not save Medicare. Instead it uses Medicare as a piggybank for tax cuts we cannot afford and do not need.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments of 1995. This bill would roll back decades of progress in cleaning up our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, and it threatens the fragile ecosystems of our Nation's wetlands. This bill has rightly been called a polluters' bill of rights. Special interests representing some of our Nation's largest polluters wrote this bill, so it is not surprising that it is riddled with custom-made loopholes to let industries pollute. The bill would increase from just 5 to 70,000 the number of industrial pollutants that could be dumped into our Nation's waterways. It would open up our Nation's most fragile wetlands to development, including more than half of all the wetlands in my home State of Connecticut. This bill poses a threat to our safe drinking water and to the rivers, streams, and lakes in which we swim and fish. My constituents along Long Island Sound would be especially harmed by provisions of this bill repealing efforts to clean up our coastal waters. Our coast protection program has proven to be true--that good environmental policy is good economic policy. Clean coastal waters generate billions of dollars in tourism revenue, creates jobs in fishing and other industries, and provide numerous recreational activities. Connecticut's Coastal Zone Management Program has made great strides at cleaning up the Long Island Sound. It has successfully restored over 1,500 acres of critical tidal wetlands. From 1991 to 1993, the number of beach closings along Long Island Sound was reduced from 292 to 174. But we clearly have more work to do. More than 25 percent of Long Island Sound's beaches still are chronically closed due to pathogen contamination. We need policies and financial resources to continue our progress, not reverse them as this bill would do. I look forward to supporting the Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer substitute because it preserves our coastal cleanup effort, it takes a more reasonable approach to wetland protection, and closes the polluter loopholes of H.R. 961. I am grateful that the substitute provides strong support for the estuary protection goals of H.R. 1438, the Water Pollution Control and Estuary Protection Act introduced by my colleague from New York, Ms. Lowey, and myself. The negative impact of H.R. 961 is immeasurable. It is bad news for everyone, except for those industries that will enjoy numerous loopholes and waivers. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this bad bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 309 I was recorded as not voting. I was in a room in the Capitol where the voting notification system malfunctioned and there was no indication that a vote was taking place. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, we honor the brave American soldiers who put their lives on the line to secure our freedom. But, we owe World War II veterans more than parades down Main Street, medal ceremonies, and memorials. We owe them the security of a decent and dignified retirement. Medicare is central to that promise. By cutting Medicare for seniors, Republicans break that promise. Under the Republican budget proposal, 37 million seniors will lose $900 a year, while 1.1 million wealthy Americans get a $20,000 windfall. A side by side comparison, reveals the painful tradeoff: $305 billion in Medicare cuts will pay for a $345 billion tax cut for the wealthy. This budget debate is all about priorities. All of us agree that we need to cut spending, but the question is where do you start. The wrong place to start is by cutting health care for seniors. If we truly want to honor the men and women who secured our future 50 years ago, let us secure their futures today, let's protect Medicare.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today, House Republicans will release their long-awaited and overdue budget proposal. While much of the public attention has focused on the Republican plan to cut Medicare, there is another aspect of the plan that is equally troublesome. The GOP budget plan cuts $12.4 billion over the next 5 years from the Stafford Student Loan Program. These cuts translate into the largest increase in college tuition costs in history. In Connecticut, the Republican cuts in student aid would mean that 39,000 students would pay $127 million more for college over 5 years. By eliminating interest-deferred Stafford loans, Republicans will add $4,547 to the cost of an education for the average college student in Connecticut. Now, $4,500 may not be much money to Newt Gingrich or Dick Armey, but I assure you that $4,500 is plenty to working families in my district. It is plenty of money to Gail Baxter of West Haven, CT. Just recently, I met Gail at a student loan forum I sponsored. Gail told me that she was worried about what cuts in student loan programs would mean for her family. And, it is no wonder she is worried. You see, Gail is a single mother who, in the fall of 1995, will have four children in college. That means four college tuitions. And, under the Republican plan, it means four increases of $4,500. All totaled the Republican plan to cut student loans, could cost this working family nearly $20,000. But, any single mother who can get four children to college, is not someone who throws up her hands when faced with an obstacle. And, Gail Baxter wasn't about to take these student loan cuts sitting down. So, she got to work and started a petition drive. I told her if she collected the signatures that I would deliver them to the chairman of the House Budget Committee. In just a few weeks time, Gail collected the signatures of 630 parents, like herself. The petition simply reads: We the undersigned oppose any attempts to cut Federal student assistance that assist hard-working American families. Like the parents who signed Gail Baxter's petition, students in my district are also concerned about cuts in student aid. They do not think it is right that government cut student loans in order to pay for another tax cut for the wealthy. And, they are right. Students from Quinnipiac College in Hamden, CT, organized a letter writing campaign to bring their message to Congress. The wrote hundreds of letters to various leaders in Congress. Here is one sample from Laurel Drumm of Quinnipiac College. She writes: Recent reports suggest you are considering the biggest cuts in the history of student aid. While we applaud congressional efforts for responsible deficit reduction, cuts in student aid just don't make sense. Student aid actually saves taxpayers money by stimulating economic growth, expanding the tax base and increasing productivity. That's why every major opinion poll shows strong support for student aid programs. The cuts under consideration would increase the student loan indebtedness by up to 50 percent and reduce grants and work-study funding. The bottom line is these cuts will make a college education unobtainable for many of us. The opportunity to go to college is a privilege that should be everyone's right. Please don't cut our future short. Don't cut student aid. Mr. Speaker, student loans are the ladder to the American dream. Many of us in this body relied on student loans to pay for our educations. Let us not pull up the ladder of opportunity behind us. The Gail Baxters and the Laurel Drumms of the world are counting on us to do what is right and save student loans.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 5, 1995, the Local Union 90 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers [IBEW] will pay tribute to its business manager, Giro ``Jerry'' Esposito, Jr. in honor of his retirement. I would like to join Local 90 in commemorating this exceptional individual who has dedicated an entire career to his union and his craft. Jerry is a longtime family friend, and I am honored to have this opportunity to acknowledge his 43 years of service to the IBEW. Jerry Esposito is not only an accomplished craftsman, but also a dependable coworker and an outstanding leader. His warm personality and high level of commitment have made him well respected by his colleagues at the IBEW. As the vice president, president, and most recently, the business manager, his dedication to the Electrical Workers Local 90 has never faltered and has resulted in prosperity and growth for the union. Unions are crucial to the well-being of American workers and they depend heavily on the vitality and solidarity of their membership. Jerry Esposito's friends and fellow electrical workers have long relied on him as an essential member of their organization. He has always been active and willing to take the lead on important issues. As a member of the Connecticut Apprenticeship Council and the IBEW's Council on Industrial Relations, Jerry has given back both to his profession and to the union that has done so much for him. I am sure his wife, Angie, and his children--Diane, Rosemary, and Patty--share in the tremendous pride that Jerry feels at this moment. I extend my heartfelt congratulations on this well-deserved tribute, and I commend Jerry Esposito for 43 years of distinguished work. I wish him many years of good health and happiness in his retirement.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, there is no mystery as to why the Republican leadership is late in producing their promised balanced budget and it seems that the party that loves to talk about promises made and promises kept may have made one too many promises when it comes to tax breaks for their wealthy friends. Who is being asked to finance the GOP tax windfall to the wealthy this time? Senior citizens. In fact, the Republican leaders want to cut $300 billion from Medicare to help to pay for their $325 billion tax giveaway to the wealthy. These cuts would add more than $3,000 to seniors' health care costs. Mr. Speaker, Medicare is a program that works. It has made a difference in the lives of our seniors by bringing affordable care to seniors on fixed incomes. This cut would be devastating to seniors. Do not take my word for it; listen to what the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], said last year about Medicare cuts. I quote: I just don't believe that quality of care and availability of care can survive these additional cuts. And that is the price that is going to have to be paid to pay for these cuts. Republican leaders in the House should remember those words and reconsider this wrongheaded plan. We, in this body, should be fighting to save the Medicare safety net for seniors, not robbing the Medicare trust fund to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, in New Haven, CT, on April 27, 1995, the Amistad Committee will honor my good friend, and long-time Connecticut State Representative, William Riley Dyson. I am pleased to have this opportunity to join the Amistad Committee in honoring this extraordinary legislator and community activist. The Amistad Committee is devoted to commemorating the remarkable events surrounding the Amistad Revolt and furthering the struggle for social justice and equality. The Amistad Revolt began in 1839 when captives from Sierra Leone seized the merchant ship La Amistad and ordered their kidnappers to return to Africa. When the slavers instead sailed toward the United States, the Amistad was taken into custody in the Long Island Sound. The rebels were held in the New Haven jail while they defended their civil rights in court. Anti-slavery advocates across the country rallied to the Africans' cause, and after 2 years, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a decision that freed them and allowed them to return home. The Amistad controversy galvanized opposition to the injustices of slavery. The incident deeply affected countless Americans, both black and white, who hailed the captives' courageous assertion of their human rights. This important event in American history has inspired generations of people in New Haven, and throughout our Nation, to follow the example of these Africans. State Representative William Riley Dyson is a person who exemplifies this commitment to the cause for peace and social justice. Bill Dyson symbolizes the strength, vitality, and tremendous activism of the African-American community. From the time he was Director of the Newhallville Neighborhood Corporation and a New Haven Alderman, to his efforts principled and outspoken advocate for the rights of all peoples. I was proud to join with Bill Dyson, and many others, as we welcomed Nelson Mandela at the White House during his historic visit to Washington. While Bill remains committed to social justice throughout the world, his home district of New Haven will always be his highest priority. From his work in the State Legislature, where he is a member of the Appropriations, Education, Legislative, and Human Services committees, to his numerous civic commitments, such as the 1995 Special Olympics World Games and the Connecticut Food Bank, Bill Dyson continues to work tirelessly for the people of his community. As the Amistad Committee honors Bill Dyson, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate him, and to express my deep appreciation for all he has done. He has a special place in the hearts of all of us whom he has touched and enriched through his leadership and extraordinary activism. Bill Dyson is well-deserving of this honor, and I commend him for his many years of service.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it's been nearly 2 weeks since a terrorist's bomb ripped a hole in the Murrah Federal Building and ripped a hole in the heart of the Nation. The images of bloodied children being carried from the rubble will stain our collective memory for a long time to come. How could it happen here, we asked. Through media reports, we have come to know the children who were so brutally murdered--we know their names and faces--Baylee Almon, Colton and Chase Smith, Aaron and Elijah Coverdale and Ashley Eckles. They have become our children, too. And, we have learned about other victims of the bombing, as well. We know that more than 500 people who were working in the Murrah Building on that awful day were federal employees. Many were killed. Federal employees were at the Social Security Administration, helping seniors in their retirement; they were there at the Housing and Urban Development Office, helping families find affordable housing; they were there at the BATF and the Secret Service helping to enforce our laws and protect our people. To understand the scale of this tragedy, one need only to talk to employees at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which had approximately 90 workers in the building at the time of the attack and suffered the greatest loss of life. At last report, 32 HUD workers have been pronounced dead, two are hospitalized and another 3 are still missing. To understand the scale of this tragedy, talk to employees at the U.S. Secret Service. All six of their employees assigned to Oklahoma City are now gone: Mickey Maroney, Alan Whicher, Kathy Seidl, Donald Leonard, Cynthia Brown and Linda McKinney. Together they leave behind 6 spouses, 6 parents and 11 children. Too often, we in this Nation, and, in particular, in this body, have been guilty of forgetting who these people are--they are not nameless, faceless bureaucrats. They are husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, and they are parents. One of the 32 HUD employees who did not survive the Oklahoma blast was Lanny Scroggins. Lanny was a decorated Vietnam veteran who spent the last 23 years as a Federal employee, helping others. How is it that Lanny Scroggins could survive the jungles of Southeast Asia, but be taken by a terrorist's bomb while at work in America's heartland? No one has the answer. But, while Federal employees were the victims in Oklahoma City, they were also the heroes: Federal employees from FEMA pulled survivors from the wreckage and helped feed the hundreds of rescue workers. Federal employees from the FBI, BATF and Secret Service launched a swift and sweeping investigation that brought the primary suspect into custody within hours of the explosion. But Federal employees are heroes every day. Every day they work to take care of our seniors, to house our poor, to enforce our laws, to bring food, shelter and clothing to those stricken by natural disasters and manmade atrocities, like the one in Oklahoma City. And, yet, for these heroes there are no Congressional Medals; no parades down Main Street; no statues in town square. Instead, these heroes too often are belittled as bureaucrats. In debate on this House floor, Federal employees have been the target of overblown political rhetoric, on both sides of the aisle. We don't know what impact our words have on deranged individuals or the lunatic fringe groups we've read so much about over the past few weeks. We do not know. Wouldn't it be best to err on the side of caution? Let's not rely on others to do the right thing, let us do the right thing and leave nothing to chance. Make no mistake, there are groups in this country who are waging a war against Federal law enforcement. For many of these fringe groups, law enforcement has become the enemy. They are not ``jack-booted Government thugs,'' as the National Rifle Association asserts. And they deserve better than to have voices of hate on our airwaves advising listeners about ``shooting them in the head.'' We need to have congressional hearings in the wake of the Oklahoma bombing on the increasing threats against Federal employees. By doing so, we don't politicize a tragedy. Rather, we live up to our responsibilities to address this tragedy and make sure it doesn't happen again. And, we also need to look at the words we use. All of us in this body want to cut the size of the Federal Government. But our goal in reducing the size of Government should be to make it work better for people. We should be able to make those arguments based on the facts, without demonizing Federal employees--without belittling their contributions. The Federal employees who were killed in Oklahoma City dedicated their lives to serving us. Now we should serve their memory by standing up to the forces that seek to divide us with words of hate.