Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to discuss an issue that I believe is critical to successful welfare reform. That is the whole issue of child support enforcement. The interests of our children must come first in welfare reform. We cannot look out for those interests unless we demand more responsibility from their parents, especially in the area of child support. Our country's failure to adequately collect child support has had a devastating impact on our children. The statistics are startling. Sixty-three support. In 1989, only 37 percent of the almost 10 million custodial mothers caring for children under 21 received any child support. And currently only $14 billion of the $48 billion in child support payments is being paid each year, leaving a gap of $34 billion uncollected. Just think of the basic needs of these children that are not being met, adequate housing, proper clothes for school, healthy meals at the dinner table, things that all of us take for granted. In my home State of Connecticut, failure to pay child support is the greatest cause of poverty among single parent families. Child support delinquencies in Connecticut exceeded $475 million in 1993 alone. Only 40 percent of families with child support orders in the state actually received payments. I recently met with a group of mothers who told me horrific stories about the choices that they are forced to make because their ex- husbands refuse to honor their court-ordered child support payments. One woman works a full-time day job and three part-time jobs at night, because her ex-husband has not paid child support in 12 years. She still finds herself falling behind, and she broke down one day in a grocery store because she had only $40 with which to buy 2 weeks' worth of groceries. Another woman has been working four jobs for 14 years in order to support her children. She has taken her ex-husband to court more than 100 times to force him to pay child support. These hard-working women, through no fault of their own, are just one step away from needing public assistance to support their kids. All because their children's fathers are refusing to pay what they owe. It should not be this way. It should not be this difficult for hard- working single parents to provide for their children. Every child has two parents, and both of them should be required to live up to their financial responsibility. Unfortunately, many do not, resulting in increased rates of childhood poverty and AFDC enrollment. And that is why the issue of child support enforcement must be addressed in the context of welfare reform. The best welfare reform of all is reform that keeps parents and children from needing government assistance in the first place. I want to send a clear message tonight, that when it comes to welfare reform, a solution that does not include tough child support enforcement is no solution at all. The Republicans Contract With America falls woefully short. The contract calls for stepping up child support collection, but it neglects to include any worthwhile means of improving child support enforcement. It takes a step in the right direction with a paternity establishment provision that requires States to establish paternity in 90 percent of their AFDC cases, but it is not enough. I believe the paternity establishment is an essential step toward enhancing child support collection. That is why we fought for provisions in the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 to encourage more voluntary in-hospital paternity programs. To truly improve child support collection, legislation is needed that will: First, work to establish child support awards in every case; second, to ensure fair award levels, and; three, to collect the awards that are owed. We also advocate changes in the law that will penalize noncustodial parents for failing to meet their child support obligations. It is my hope that the Republicans will prove to be open to these kinds of changes and suggestions. I look forward to the subcommittee's meeting and hearing on Monday, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this very important issue. I hope that our motto for welfare reform, besides rewarding work and responsibility and allowing people to go to work to do that and to get off welfare, but that we will put our children first.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, well, they did it yesterday. The Federal Reserve secretly met to raise interest rates, and in so doing raised the cost of living for every American family. Connecticut, my home State, has just emerged from the recession, and working people were just beginning to feel more confident again. But the Federal Reserve dashed those hopeful feelings, and they stole that sense of confidence from the people that I represent. The promise of an improving economy and all that means for working families in this Nation has been dashed by the Federal Reserve's action. I meet with my constituents every Saturday morning at supermarkets all over my district, and on many occasions they have asked me to stand in their shoes, to understand their pain, feel their hurt. Well, today I pass that advice on to Allen Greenspan and the Federal Reserve. Come out of the secret meetings, leave the hallowed boardrooms of Wall Street and visit the living rooms of West Haven and Hamden, CT. Take the challenge my constituents have given me. Walk in their shoes before you do this again.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reserve Board is meeting to consider yet another hike in interest rates. Democrats are united in opposing this increase, because we believe it will have a detrimental impact on working middle class families across the country. In 1994 the Fed raised interest rates six times. Those rate hikes were designed to slow economic growth and head off inflation. But another increase now could slow the economy right into a recession just as the economic recovery is reaching working families. In my home State of Connecticut, where job growth continues to lag behind the rest of the country, another rise in interest rates could kill jobs and keep the economy recovery from ever reaching hardworking families. Mr. Speaker, it is true that our economy is not at full health. But prescribing another interest rate hike as a cure is like prescribing brain surgery for a headache. It is unnecessary, and it could kill the patient.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Solomon amendment. I think that the amendment is a victory for openness and for full participation by all Members in the legislative process. I think that it is one of the ways in which we try to gain the trust of the American people. I also believe that we cannot go just halfway on that reform. The American people are looking to us in fact to reform this House and to open it up to their views and to their opinions. While this is a good rules change, I think that the public cares about some other rules changes, including the whole effort to enact a ban on all gifts to Members of the Congress and their staffs. I think we have to enact a ban into law to assure the American people that the days of perks and privileges are really over. We also need to ban Members from using frequent-flier miles for their personal use and that ought to be part of a rules change. Every single perk that we allow to continue serves only to undermine all the other reforms that we enact in this body. Reform really is an all-or-nothing proposition. If we do not go all the way and ban gifts and other perks, our reform efforts will die the death of a thousand cuts.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the need for an outside counsel to investigate Speaker Gingrich's financial empire grows stronger with each passing day. Today there is an article in the Los Angeles Times which raises new questions about the Speaker's political fund raising organization, an organization known as GOPAC. Earlier this month there were details of a secret meeting between the Speaker and Rupert Murdoch and that was leaked to the press. The meeting raised some questions because Mr. Murdoch has billions of dollars of business before the Congress, and at that same time there was a $4.5 million book deal that was on the table. The Speaker dismissed this meeting and its content or its import by saying that, ``I never get involved in cases like this,'' but history in fact tells us otherwise. The Speaker has interceded on behalf of companies in the past, including writing a letter to Chief of Staff Leon Panetta asking the FDA to speed company's products. Lo and behold, the pharmaceutical company devoted $30,000 or an amount thereabouts to the Progress in Freedom Foundation's conservative think tank organization that does in fact have ties to the Speaker. Today's Los Angeles Times has an expose on GOPAC. It provides us with some really rather startling information. GOPAC, again a Republican fund-raising machine, has raised millions of dollars without telling us who the donors are. The amount raised, according to the Los Angeles Times, is much higher than that which is allowed by laws governing campaign fund-raising. One couple, it is reported, have given about $715,000 over 8 years, and this was a quote from the L.A. Times, ``nearly twice what they could have donated directly to all Federal candidates.'' Despite claims to the contrary, GOPAC appears to be very involved in getting Republican candidates elected to the Congress. Again, according to the Los Angeles Times and I quote, ``GOPAC boasts that half of the 136 elected Republicans since 1990 actively used the group's training materials and followed its advice on how to attack Democrats.'' Quoting the former GOPAC chairman, and I quote, ``Of course we couldn't have captured the House without GOPAC.'' How can this be? We have been told, the American people have been told that GOPAC's multimillion dollar organization did not involve itself in more than 10 percent of the time in Federal election issues. And the American people need to understand this: We have sent this complex issue to be investigated by the House Ethics Committee, where many of the Members could be recipients of help from the very group that they are in fact going to investigate. Really never has there been a clearer case for investigation by a nonpartisan, nonpartisan outside counsel. GOPAC has been too secretive with its finances. People need to know why. Why are the names of the contributors secret? Is it, as was suggested in the Los Angeles Times by the former GOPAC chair, because their donors say, and again I quote, ``what if GOPAC did something wrong and I was associated with it?'' Let us open the books. Let us have an open and fair and honest review. Let us make the American public understand who are the contributors to GOPAC, what are their relationships with the U.S. Congress. We need to have an outside counsel look at this. That is simple, very clear and open, and without any aforementioned judgment, but let us have a look at what this is all about.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we need to take up the President's challenge and ban gifts of any kind from paid lobbyists, and we need to restrict the amount of royalty income that Members of Congress are permitted to receive to one-third of their annual salary. The Bryant bill would do just that. It is the toughest lobby reform and ethics legislation ever considered by Congress. We must pass the Bryant bill, because it is not enough for each Member of Congress to simply pledge that we will not longer take gifts or accept royalties, we also need to enforce disclosure by lobbyists. The American people have a right to know what legislation these groups are attempting to influence and how much money they are spending in those efforts. On January 4, the first day of the 104th Congress, House Democrats moved to impose tough gift restrictions and royalty limits. But that effort failed--not a single Republican voted for the gift ban. It is time for Republicans to live up to their rhetoric on reform. Perks and privileges demean this institution and everyone who serves here. Let us pass the gift ban, now.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last night, in an eloquent State of the Union Address, President Clinton asked Americans to forge a new covenant based on inalienable rights and solemn responsibilities. The President urged Members of this body to work together to pass welfare reform, tax relief, and reduce wasteful spending. He also emphasized the need to balance the budget. We agree. But, like the President, we're here to draw the line. We will not balance the Federal budget on the backs of seniors. We will not cut Social Security and Medicare to balance the budget. Senior citizens built this country. They have worked hard, raised families, fought wars, and forged strong communities. Our senior citizens have lived up to their responsibilities. And, they have earned the right of a decent and dignified retirement. We need a leaner, not a meaner Government. That's where Democrats and Republicans part company. While the Speaker has promised to spare Social Security, the Republican balanced budget amendment shows Social Security no mercy. Instead, the Republicans have put forth the Flanagan fig leaf resolution we now have before us. This resolution does nothing to protect Social Security--it has no force of law. It does not ensure we will achieve a balanced budget that does not attack Social Security, because it does not guarantee a constitutional bar against cuts in Social Security benefits. So the Social Security trust fund surplus will still be used to mask the real size of the deficit. The President was right last night. The final test of everything we do should be a simple one: Is it good for the American people? All of the American people. The Republican balanced budget amendment does not pass that test, and our senior citizens will not be fooled by this Flanagan fig leaf resolution. Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to make Social Security a wedge issue. My Republican colleagues are trying to fool seniors into believing that this resolution will protect their benefits. This resolution ought to be called: Seniors beware, your benefits are in trouble.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I concur with my colleague who was up here a moment ago, that in fact what we are about here is the people's business and that we need to talk about the issues that affect middle- class families, working families every single day. As a Democrat, I have done that in the 2 terms that I have been here and I submit to you this evening that the President will build on what he said several weeks ago on a middle-class Bill of Rights that will include a minimum wage. I would like to find out from my colleagues if that is something that he will support because in fact people in this Nation are not looking at an increased higher standard, but that is an important issue. Education and training. Not cutting Social Security for families. And when we look at the balanced budget and what that is going to do, when my friends on the other side of the aisle would not in fact exempt Social Security from the balanced budget amendment. There is rhetoric and there probably is rhetoric on both sides. But let me tell you what is important and what my Republican colleagues do not want to talk about. That is a need for an outside counsel to answer questions. That is what is being asked, answer questions about Speaker Gingrich's financial empire. The last 2 weeks have been filled with press revelations. We are not making these things up about this multi-billion-dollar book deal but, more importantly, about a private meeting with publishing magnet Rupert Murdoch. Any appearance of impropriety could have been voided if the contents of the book had been disclosed. My colleague from Colorado talked about a Newsweek report. This week Americans read in Newsweek this is not the first time Rupert Murdoch has published a book by politicians, promoting them huge sums of money. In 1990 while seeking special rules to allow his Australian company to expand his empire in Great Britain Rupert Murdoch asked the help of the Thatcher government, and not long after Margaret Thatcher signed an eye-popping $5.4 million book deal. This appears to be a pattern for Mr. Murdoch. We need to have an outside counsel take a look at it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Towns amendment, which I believe will preserve the proper Federal role in regulating actions by one State that harm another State. Like so many of my colleagues, I strongly believe that the Federal Government should not impose unnecessary mandates or burdens on State and local governments without clear benefits, but the Federal Government should set standards in areas such as health and in safety and environmental protection that prevent one State from doing harm to another State. Without some national standards we would be helpless to prevent powerplants from dirtying the air of States downstream or to prevent polluters in upstream States from contaminating downstream waters. I know the critical role that the Federal Government plays in meeting interstate environmental challenges from my work to protect the Long Island Sound. For years so many communities along the sound could not afford the modern sewage treatment plants that they needed to stop polluting the sound. With the Clean Water Act, and especially the National Estuaries Program, the Federal Government shared the cost for cleanup efforts with local communities, and we began to get the job done. That is a partnership, that is not a mandate. But under this bill there is no room for partnership. Either the Federal Government picks up the whole tab, or the Federal Government stays out and lets local communities fend for themselves, even if it means that they keep polluting the air and water, they cannot afford to clean up alone. Under this bill, the communities along the Long Island Sound would still be waiting to build the sewer plants that they needed. We ought to be expanding opportunities for partnership, as the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] and I have tried to do with our wastewater protection program. As we learned, these partnerships do much more than help to protect our environment and our quality of life. It is not only the environment. They also help communities to expand local economies, to create jobs. That is an investment and not a mandate. Yes, we need to reduce unnecessary Federal burdens, but we also need to expand the opportunities for Federal, State, and local partnerships and investment. The Towns amendment will do just that. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, my Republican colleagues set an unfortunate precedent by gagging debate on the House floor, and disallowed the airing of legitimate questions surrounding a Member's financial dealings. Today, Republicans and the Heritage Foundation plan yet another closed door meeting with telecommunications executives to discuss future regulation of our public airwaves. The meeting is closed to Democrats, closed to the media, and closed to the public. But, this is not the only way that the public may be shut out of their House. The Heritage Foundation has recommended to Republicans in Congress that they cut corners by charging admission to the U.S. Capitol. In fact, one Heritage Foundation scholar said this week of tourists who take guided tours of the Capitol, and I quote: ``They wear down the steps, they brush against the walls.'' Republicans should not be concerned about the American people wearing down the steps. They should be concerned about how special-interest influence and book deals are wearing on the reputation of this institution.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the University of Connecticut's women's basketball team beat top-ranked Tennessee to become the No. 1 team in the Nation. I join fans from all across our State in congratulating the players, coaches, and the university for this impressive achievement. We are so proud of you. On Monday, the UConn fans proved themselves to be tops in the Nation, too. They call it Husky Mania, but it is much more. Before anyone imagined a 13 and 0 start, 6,500 season tickets were sold; Monday's game sold out in December; students camped out overnight to get their hands on tickets; and, on Monday, 8,241 fans packed the Gampel Pavilion to cheer the Women Huskies to victory. It seems that the age-old sports rituals once reserved for men's teams have begun to take hold in the women's game. I am proud that the University of Connecticut and their fans both men and women, are helping to lead that trend. I expect we will see equal enthusiasm when UConn's men's basketball team moves from No. 2 to No. 1. Go Huskies.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the stories surrounding the meeting between Speaker Gingrich and Rupert Murdoch have turned into a political chameleon, changing its colors with each new cycle. First, the Speaker's office could not recall the meeting. Then the Gingrich spokesman said nothing serious was discussed at the meeting, and it was merely a courtesy call. The following day, the account of the meeting changed again. The Speaker said he and Murdoch discussed the FEC complaint against Murdoch's ownership of Fox television, but that it only came up in passing. Now we learn that Fox Television's top lobbyist was in the meeting. It is time for the Speaker to come clean on his multi-million-dollar book deal and his secret meeting with Mr. Murdoch. We were promised open government and not closed-door deals. The Wall Street Journal said this morning there was another closed-door meeting this week with Mr. Murdoch and telecommunications leaders that is planned. What is going on? The Speaker needs to come clean. We need an outside counsel to review this mess.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk a little bit today about my own support, which is strong support, of the Congressional Accountability Act. It was introduced by my colleague and my good friend, the gentleman from Connecticut, Chris Shays, and I congratulate him for his tenacity and for his determination to see this piece of legislation through. The Congressional Accountability Act is a commonsense piece of legislation. It simply requires Congress to abide by all of the laws that it passes, so that Congress and Members of Congress are accountable for the laws that they pass, and they apply to Members. It makes perfect sense. By bringing Congress under labor and workplace laws that have long regulated private industry, we then begin to move government closer to people. The reforms of this Congressional Accountability Act are long overdue, and once again I reiterate my strong support for it and in fact worked very, very hard for it in the last session of this Congress. However, in the midst of this wave of reform, in this package one perk was left untouched, and that is the ability of Members of this House to convert frequent-flier miles accrued from taxpayer-funded travel to their own personal use. Ending the frequent-flier perk is essential. It is essential to our ability to restore that bond of trust with the American people which we so need to remake with the American public. Members of this body should not be taking golf junkets or tropical vacations at the taxpayers' expense. Last August under Democratic leadership, the House overwhelmingly approved the Congressional Accountability Act, and when we did that last August it included a ban on personal use of frequent-flier miles by Members of the House of Representatives. In October, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] objected to inclusion of the frequent-flier ban, so it was removed. We cannot reform this institution while the Republican leadership works behind closed doors to protect perks. It is wrong. It is not open government and it is not reform in the way that the American public demanded reform on November 8. A ban on conversion of frequent-flier miles for personal use should, indeed, have been included in the Congressional Accountability Act today as it was last year. Quite honestly, what makes the omission more disgraceful is that our colleagues in the Senate have included a frequent-flier ban in this version of the bill, and that means that we will pass a Congressional Accountability Act that will hold the United States Senate to a higher standard than the House of Representatives. That is wrong, and it is shameful. By requiring that Members of Congress use these tickets only for official use we save the taxpayers money. That is what the debate is about. Speaker Gingrich says that hardly any money would be saved by ending this perk and, therefore, this is a ``Mickey Mouse reform.'' And while it is true that most Members of Congress only qualify for a few frequent-flier tickets per year, the dollars in fact do add up. Ask working Americans if they would not like a pair of free airline tickets dropped in their laps every few months to use at their own discretion to take a trip and get some rest and relaxation. It may not be a lot of money to the Speaker, but it is to most Americans. But by simply attaching a dollar figure to figure the value of reform we miss the point. It is the message, the message that protection of this perk sends to the public that is most destructive. Today, just today, Mr. Gingrich reiterated his support for keeping the frequent-flier perk for Members of the House and admits that he used these freebies to fly members of his own family. Mr. Gingrich says that he is interested in a more family friendly Congress and worries about Members of Congress of modest means who use the free tickets to fly family members to and from Washington. Modest means? Members of Congress make $126,000 a year. I doubt that most Americans consider this to be modest means. The American people, indeed, are fed up with public officials who live by a different set of rules. The Congressional Accountability Act begins to address these inequities, and the American public is right, Congress should not live by a different set of rules. But today we had a chance to go a step further and to close that loophole that allows Members of Congress to vacation at the taxpayers' expense.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it seems a book could be written on what the American people do not know about the Speaker's multimillion dollar book deal with one of publishing magnate Rupert Murdoch's companies. First we were told the Speaker had not met with Mr. Murdoch prior to signing his book contract. Yesterday the New York Daily News reported the Speaker had indeed met with Mr. Murdoch, but nothing of substance was discussed. Today, the Wall Street Journal reported that, in fact, issues surrounding pending legislation in which Mr. Murdoch has a direct interest were discussed in the meeting. This meeting does not directly imply impropriety, but it does raise serious questions that deserve answers. What exactly was discussed at this meeting? Did the legislative issues that Mr. Murdoch is so interested in come up in the meeting? Like foreign ownerships of U.S. media interests? Were the details of the Speakers $4 million book deal with Mr. Murdoch discussed? Mr. Speaker, each day new revelations are raising new questions. The news reports create a cloud. That cloud can best be cured by addressing with a thorough and independent review the

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, would my colleague yield for just one second?

Ms. DeLAURO. I would like to make a comment about an article today that has to do with the balanced budget amendment, from the Wall Street Journal, by their economist Robert Eisner. He points out, with regard to a balanced budget amendment, households could not begin to balance their budgets the way the Government would be required to under the Republican plan. The point being, I guess, that if we are to look at investments either by the Federal Government or by families, families borrow to buy a car, to buy a home, get their kids to school; businesses borrow. If you had to take all of that, if you had to pay for everything out of current income, you would find yourselves unable to do the things that families normally do every day. Now, just to go back to what my colleague from California was talking about, there are a variety of ways to deal with this issue. You can, as was suggested in this article, and as some of our colleagues suggested, that you separate out a capital budget from an operating budget, which is the way, in fact, most States today balance their budgets. They do that because they have a capital expenditure, it is paid for over the life of the asset, and you deal with your current expenditures out of current cash. Families do that every single day. By narrowing the playing field, if you will, what the Republicans are doing is not allowing for various ideas and various opportunities to come up so that we can debate each of these and figure out the best way in which you can balance that budget, thereby allowing both the Federal Government and families and businesses to continue to invest in their future, and not cut them off or shut them down in their ability to move forward. ourselves in a position where the public has called out and cried out-- and I believe this is true in this election--for open government, participatory government, for not allowing for gridlock, for moving forward. And we see that all of that is being throttled by the Republican leadership, and all in the name of saying that the public is afraid and would be fearful of the pain that is involved if we have to balance the budget. It does not make any sense.

Ms. DeLAURO. I am delighted to join my colleagues here this afternoon. This I think is one of the most important debates that we are going to have in the next several days and in the next several weeks. I would like to add to what my colleagues have said in this respect, that we all do want to have a balanced budget. Members of Congress want to do that, the public wants to do that, we want to erase the debt that threatens our children's future. That is what we are about. To add to what the majority leader said over the weekend on the television shows, Mr. Armey said not only would Congress' knees buckle, but that he feared that if you spelled it out for the American public they could not deal with the pain. Now is that not a terrible indictment of the American public? As far as I know we are still a representative democracy. We did not come back here to impose a secret exclusive policy on the public and the people that we represent but, in fact, rather to open up an exclusive debate on where this Nation should go. That is what this is about. Quite frankly, that is what Republicans campaigned on with the bumper stickers you were talking about. In fact, we need to have open government. But I tell you, we do have some general idea of the Republican plan and what it would require. According to the Congressional Budget Office it would require $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, revenue increases, or spending cuts, or a combination of the two to balance the budget by the year 2002. Since Republicans have indicated that the revenue increases will not be used to balance the budget, a constitutional amendment would then require $1.2 trillion in spending cuts alone to balance the budget. This estimate does not even take into account the $193 billion in tax cuts over the next 5 years that are contained in the Republican contract, nor does it talk about what the increase in defense spending on star wars would mean in terms of the cuts. Let me just give a couple of examples which I think are very critical, and this not by Democratic standards but by a Republican Senate and Republican House staff which says that this would require a 24-percent increase across the board. That is what their notions are in terms of a cut. If you talk about Medicare, let us take a look at that. In the last week the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, suggested transforming the Medicare system into another system. Is this in the balanced budget, which is the truth that we need to know and that the public needs to know. Is that in there? What does it mean to seniors in this Nation if we are going to talk about a 24-percent increase in their premiums for Medicare beneficiaries? What services are no longer going to be covered by Medicare? Could it be worse? Also, according to a Republican Senate Budget Committee staff analysis, you would have to cut almost $1 trillion over the next 7 years to pay for the Republican contract. Further examples of what this 24-percent across-the-board cut means is that one out of every four college students now receiving Pell grants would be forced out of school. These young people and their families have a right to know what is in that balanced budget amendment. Twenty-four percent across the board would mean one of every four high school graduates currently in apprenticeship programs would be denied the job training that would allow them to get ahead and to earn a living. They have a right to know what is in this balanced budget amendment. Would 24 percent across the board mean that one of every four children enrolled in the Head Start Program would lose also the help that they need to start each day and enter school ready to learn? Essentially what we are saying, the long and the short of it is you cannot talk about and run for office on open government and then decide to shut it down when you are in charge. We are just asking the Republicans to come clean. We all know that balancing the budget is going to require sacrifice. The public knows that, Members of this body know that, and if they do not they should know that because it is going to be difficult. We have to make the tough choices. That is all we are asking here. I joined my colleagues last year in supporting the Democratic balanced budget amendment that sought to achieve a balanced budget while trying to keep Social Security intact. Does the Republicans' balanced budget put Social Security on that chopping block? In fact it does. Today in the Judiciary Committee, Republican members of the committee voted not to exclude and exempt Social Security from the balanced budget cuts. What does that mean? Seniors in this Nation have a right to know what this is about. The fact is that the Republicans fear opening the debate on their ideas to the American public. They are afraid of letting people participate in this decisionmaking process that is critical to our Nation's future. I am delighted to join my colleagues this afternoon in this discussion because as I said at the outset, nothing can be more important than this debate. Members of Congress have to know what is in that balanced budget amendment, the American public has got to know what is in that balanced budget amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. DeLAURO. I just want to say I mean through all the discourse and commentary on this issue quite frankly, as a woman in West Haven, CT, said to me at office hours one morning, one Saturday morning, she said, ``I wish for one minute that the people in Washington would put their feet in our shoes and understand what our lives are all about,'' and that is what this is about. It is what people want to know, is their standard of living going to be raised? Are they going to be able to get their kids to school? Are they going to be able to live in some kind of sense of security? Are they going to be able to pass on that American dream to their kids the way my colleagues' fathers, and my mother and father, did for me? The whole point of this and part of that is that we do get our fiscal house in order. There is no question about that. But let us come clean with the American public and in fact tell them whether this balanced budget amendment is going to deny their kid, one out of four, a Pell grant to get them to school. Is it going to put their mother or elderly mother and father in jeopardy with regard to Social Security and with Medicare? Is it going to jeopardize their ability to get education and training so that they can get that first job? That second job? That fifth job? And earn a living wage? And is it going to do something to allow them to work and go to work in this country? Is it going to raise that standard of living? Let us have that open debate in this body. The American people deserve no less around this issue of the balanced budget.

Ms. DeLAURO. I would just like to say to my colleagues, that's absolutely correct, and that is all we are asking for, is to have that opportunity for the discussion and for the debate. And I join my colleagues today and others, and I think what I am prepared to do is to have this discussion and debate on a daily basis, if that is what is required in order to try to get the information out to the American people as to what, in fact, we are deliberating here and how it is being deliberated. We have to call on people who are in positions as Governors and elected officials to be responsible. It is not just a bumper sticker. It is not just a slogan. If that is what we were doing in the past, and that is what we have decried and said we are not going to do in the future, then let us not go back to business as usual. Let us not do that. The American people, as I said earlier, deserve better than that, and we have an opportunity here. That is what we were sent here to do; that is what Governors were elected to do as well.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, a new chapter opened today in the history surrounding the hiring and the firing of the House Historian. Today, the former Historian reveals to the Atlanta Constitution that she had indeed informed the Speaker's office about her views on the teaching of the Holocaust before she was hired. This directly contradicts the statements that had been made by the Speaker's office. The Historian was fired because her opposition to funding a course on the Holocaust was wrong because it did not reflect what she called the Nazi point of view or the Ku Klux Klan point of view. Such extremism from the person hired to chronicle an important part of the history of our government is an affront to this body and to all Americans. How could a person known to have such extreme views on this issue and one that is so sensitive to so many Americans, how could that person have been hired? But perhaps we should not be surprised. This is not the only office that the new Speaker has turned into a partisan political tool. The same thing was done in selecting the House administrator. I fear that we are seeing the beginning of a dangerous pattern.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans promised the most open Congress in history, but when it comes to being honest about issues that mean the most to the American people, they would rather keep us all in the dark. Yesterday, the new majority leader refused to disclose the details of one of the centerpieces of the Contract With America--the balanced budget amendment. When asked why he would not tell the American people what the balanced budget amendment included, the majority leader said that he feared that the amendment would be defeated if the details were spelled out for the American people. The American people have a right to know exactly how we would balance the budget. They have a right to know if Republicans are planning on putting Medicare and Social Security on the chopping block. Democrats are offering the ``Honest Budget Bill,'' which will require sponsors of a balanced budget proposal to present a line by line account of how they would achieve a balanced budget. It is a bill which meets the standards of accountability, honesty, and openness that the American people have demanded. Standards that my Republican colleagues have failed to meet, thus far.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding this opportunity to me. I just want to make a comment with regard to the closed rules. I have sat in this Chamber day after day, as the gentleman from New York has, and I have great respect for my colleague. I have listened to his personal opposition to closed rules and the opposition of other like to take a second to lift some quotes here. Here is one by Representative Dreier, ``Each time a closed rule is foisted on the House, Members of Congress are denied the opportunity to represent their constituents.'' A quote from the Honorable Mr. Solomon: ``The people are sick and tired of political gamesmanship. They want back into their own House. They want it open and democratic and not closed and dictatorial.'' Representative Pryce: ``With every closed rule, millions of voters are disenfranchised when their duly elected Representatives are prevented from offering relevant amendments to bills that we consider.'' These are all quotes from the last session of the Congress. The gentleman has also commented that in fact part of what occurred here is the American public wanted to see change, wanted to see the process open, and wanted to see reform. I agree with the gentleman. I think we made so many strides in the last Congress to deal with reform in passing the Accountability Act. We passed it again last night. But I would just say this to you, that yesterday, something that really happened on the floor probably is a first in the House; there were two closed rules, two gag rules offered on the first day. The second of the closed rules was hidden within the closed rule, so it was a closed rule inside a closed rule. Now, the point is that if you want to have change, you cannot be talking in two directions and saying that the Democrats did it a year ago, therefore, ``We have a right to do it now.'' The issue is if you truly believe that the process should be open. We had a historic opportunity yesterday on the floor of this House to demonstrate two things: openness of this process. There should have been an opportunity for Democrats to amend the Accountability Act and to deal with a vote on a gift ban and that we should have taken this very historic day and turned it into that opportunity to say to the American people that in fact we have changed, we have reformed this body, this institution; we opened up the process and people can amend and debate on this floor and we have separated ourselves from the special interests who have an overwhelming effect in this body and who have a direct effect on legislation. On both of these instances, the opportunity was missed. I say that more in sorrow than I do in outrage or anger because I think that the public is demanding reform, an opportunity to do so, but you cannot say it and then not do it. And it is not good enough to say, ``You did it; therefore, it is now our opportunity to do it.'' We cannot have that on the floor of this House.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, Democrats were proud to join Republicans yesterday in passing many necessary procedural reforms. Those reforms continue the work begun by Democrats to make the House more accountable to the people. But, Republicans failed to act on the most important reform, the one central to our ability to restore faith in Government-- the ban on gifts from lobbyists. The American people are fed up with a Congress bought and paid for by the special interests. Perks and privileges betray the public trust. Until Democrats and Republicans unite to end the corrupting influence of the moneyed interests on this body, we have failed to deliver the change that the American people have demanded. So I ask my Republican counterparts to join Democrats in telling the influence peddlers that this House is not for sale--not for the price of a free meal; not for the price of a junket to a tropical island; not for sale at any price. Let us pass the gift ban and begin restoring the People's House to the people.