Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, I find it interesting your project is defined as a demonstration program. We made a special policy in the Committee on Appropriations we were not going to allow any demonstration programs in the bill. You must feel you really have a lot of pull over there at the Committee on Rules because, in fact, your proposal here is totally out of step with every other Member of this institution but for one other. I find it quite interesting. Let me ask you, in the demonstration program that you are proposing be included in this appropriation bill, is your program [[Page H 7868]] authorized? You mentioned the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] wants to do it later in the year. Is your program authorized that you are asking for?

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I listened with care to the presentation of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and the special manner in which his request has been treated in this appropriations bill. Now, what I find very unusual about it is that this really is not a matter for the Committee on Appropriations. In fact, as I listened to the gentleman concerning how you wished to handle the section 8 certificates, and I believe you are from Madison, WI, this is really a matter for the authorizers. In fact, you could bring a separate bill to the floor, and what I find really amazing is that the Committee on Rules allowed you to do this and you have been given a special waiver to be included in the appropriations bill for a given project when, in fact, we cannot even get included in the rule governing the debate on this bill major programs, not just a project here or there, but major programs that we are being denied the ability to debate, such as the drug elimination program which I brought up this morning during the debate on the rule. So I would like to ask the gentleman how is it that you were given this really quite unique opportunity? I think you were one of only two such special inclusions in the appropriations bill. What presentation did you make to the Committee on Rules and how were you able to get this included? I am very curious.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, tell me would this be in order: We had some conversations here with the leadership on the other side of the aisle and some of the folks here. What if I were to withdraw my amendment at this point perhaps for an hour or two as we are proceeding through the remainder of title II, reserving the right to bring it up at the end of title II? That would give us more time to discuss this with the full committee chair. It would give us time to discuss with the majority leader since he came over here and talked to us about it. Would that be in order at this point?

Ms. KAPTUR. So if the Chair recalls earlier today when the chairman of the Committee on Rules was on the floor and told me that this was an open rule and thus I would have the opportunity to offer my amendment and said I would be able to do that, now, it is proven, what he said has not happened. I have not been offered the opportunity to have a full debate on my amendment here on the floor and be given an up-or- down vote on it. Is that not correct?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, am I correct in understanding that the ruling of the Chair would create a situation where we would thus be denied an opportunity to have a vote on the direct question of should we sustain this program for fiscal year 1996? Is that the net effect?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Sadly, I rise in opposition to this bill, which we have worked so very hard on. Let me say for the record that I voted for almost every balanced budget amendment that passed this House and maintain a voting record that proves that. This bill is truly too severe. It cuts housing in our country by over 23 percent. It means seniors living in buildings across this country will be paying $1,000 more a year even though they make $8,000 a year. It means our mayors will have to choose between homeless, where funds are being cut by half, and drug elimination programs, and I think that EPA's cut of 33 percent, when we have got dumps and leaking dumps all over this country and toxic waste that we have to clean up is really wrong. I think the President had a 2-percent cut in this budget. I think that was reasonable. This budget is too extreme, too sever, and in addition to that, if you read the provisions in the report, it even tries to undermine EPA's ability to enforce environmental standards along our border as a result of NAFTA. It is even undermining environmental enforcement. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this measure. Mr. Chairman, sadly, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is too extreme, at the same time too severe. I want to commend the distinguished chairman of our committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], for his cordial handling of this very complicated bill and to express my sincere appreciation for his efforts in restoring $10 million of funding to the Department of Veterans Affairs' Health Professional Scholarship Program by transferring funds from other accounts. I also want to acknowledge the diligence an wise counsel of the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], on this bill. Let me point out, I voted for the budget amendments that passed this House and maintain a voting record that proves it. But this bill is not even-handed--it cuts environmental protection by one-third; it cuts housing and senior housing by 25 percent, and it cuts medical care by $250 million at times when our World War II veterans are using the system in greater numbers. Introduction The programs under our committee's jurisdiction provide assistance and benefits that help millions of Americans achieve a better life. Included are programs for medical care and benefits for our Nation's veterans, affordable and decent housing for families and individuals of all incomes and circumstances, a safe and clean environment, and investments in technology and science. Rather than cutting these budgets by a reasonable amount--say 2 to 5 percent--it axes support for key national commitments. The overall effect of the bill before this body is to seriously erode our efforts for veterans, housing, and the environment. This bill provides inadequate support for our Nation's veterans, [[Page H 7829]] and it will impair our ability to provide them quality medical care. It also makes deep cuts in the funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development--25 percent--and the Environmental Protection Agency--32 percent. In addition, this bill continues to fund one very big-ticket item, the space station, at the expense of other programs under the committee's jurisdiction, including ones designed to assist the poorest, the neediest, and the most vulnerable among us. I disagree with the severity of the reductions. And what makes it more egregious is that all the savings will not be used to balance the budget. Rather, the money is being controlled to give tax breaks to the Fortune 500 ``big daddies'' later this year. This is simply wrong. Health Professional Scholarship Program Let me say, I am grateful to the chairman for his willingness to work with me to fund the Health Professional Scholarship Program. This educational and training program assists in assuring an adequate supply of trained health professionals, not only for the VA but also the Nation. To date, these scholarship awards have provided more than 4,000 scholarships to students in nursing, occupational therapy, physical therapy, respiratory therapy, and nurse anesthesia. I thank the chairman for his strong willingness to cooperate and provide leadership on this health scholarship program which helps advance professionals during a time when tuition costs are skyrocketing. Upon graduation, students are required to complete 2 years of service in the VA health system, and the retention rate of the scholarship recipients in VA medical centers is greater than 50 percent. The flexibility to provide scholarships for the education of a variety of health professionals has made this program particularly useful as changes have occurred in the delivery of health care services. As the program has identified shortages in particular categories of health professionals, the numbers and types of scholarship awards have been shifted accordingly. For example, in fiscal year 1994, more awards were made for advanced practice nurses, in contrast to entry-level nurses, and for physical therapists and occupational therapists. These are the health professionals currently in shortest supply in the VA, and they are anticipated to be needed nationwide in the future. This academic year, the program will be adding physician assistant awards to meet the needs of a health care system that is increasingly focusing on primary care. The funding of this program is vital to the recruitment and retention of scarce health professionals in the VA, and it is necessary to be responsive to the health care needs of veterans who have courageously defended this Nation. I thank the chairman for his strong leadership on this program. eap/nafta report language I also oppose this bill because it contains too much free rein with legislation on an appropriation bill. In addition, the report to this bill contains language which undermines our ability to enforce NAFTA. The report to the bill questions EPA's use of subpoenas to collect United States-Mexico border environmental data it infers EPA's issuing subpoenas to American companies with subsidiaries located in the vicinity of the New River and Imperial Valley in southern California, has somehow contravened NAFTA. This language is just one more example of the influence of big business lobbyists, and the extent to which the majority has subordinated the health and safety of our continent to pure greed. Everyone knows that the EPA is well within its authority in issuing these subpoenas. They were issued to U.S. companies, which are required to comply with existing U.S. standards. The NAFTA contains provisions that protect our rights to determine and apply our own levels of environmental protection, and the Toxic Substances Control Act specifically authorizes the EPA to issue subpoenas as it did in this case. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be better served by listening to the Member of their own party who represents the district in question rather than the special interests and big business lobbyists who would use report language such as this in an attempt to intimidate the EPA into backing off of an investigation which would have major health implications for our citizens. conclusion As I outlined earlier during the debate on the rule, I also oppose this bill because it zeroes out the effective drug elimination program. That has stemmed the drug tide across this Nation. Because of its elimination as well as the reductions in other vital programs that help veterans, the elderly, and children, I must oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. The bill is not balanced, and its savings will not help reduce deficit, but rather be transferred to billions in tax breaks to the privileged few. How sad.

Ms. KAPTUR. I have a hunch what the Chair is going to do, Mr. Chairman. I have kind of been forewarned, and I am trying to get a definition of why we would be excluded. I hope when the Chair rules he will so state that reason, especially in relation to other programs in the bill that are included but are not authorized.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I am a bit befuddled here in trying to understand by what criteria in this point of order we are ruled out of order, saying we are unauthorized when, in fact, everything else in the bill is not authorized either.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the point of order; am I not?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, what does that mean?

Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is what I would like to do. I want to say, first of all, that I think that the work that the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] did in helping us to restore the health education scholarships for nurses, for occupational therapists, and so forth, a $10 million program that has existed since the early 1980's, was right for America and it was the proper thing to do with some of the dollars that were given to our committee when other committees worked out their bottom line numbers. On this particular one, as I mentioned, I am not blaming the gentleman personally for this. I am exceedingly disappointed in the Rules Committee based on what happened.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I also want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] for yielding me time, although I did not get an answer to my question. I thank you for your gentlemanly comportment and also to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], our very capable Chair, who fully understands that I am barred under this rule from offering my amendment on the floor, and to my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], I will not be allowed to offer this amendment to continue the drug eradication programs in our public housing neighborhoods around this country, because I will be called on a point of order. It is not an open rule, because the Committee on Banking and Financial Services did not complete its business, sir, and I only have a minute and three-quarters under the rule. So if you would be kind enough, I would just like to say every mayor in this country, every citizen in this country, every person who lives in and around public housing understands what it is like to have these projects controlled by snipers and drug lords. I was in Chicago; you could not even walk from building to building, because there were snipers on the roofs who were controlling the drug trade. When I am not allowed to offer my amendment, what it means is that this Congress is going on record as saying that hundreds and hundreds of communities across this country can go it alone. I think it is absolutely wrong for us to return our backs on the scourge of the drug trade that is eating away at the hearts of our communities, and I think it is absolutely wrong, I think it is wrong from a public policy standpoint. I think it is politically wrong for me to be denied the ability to offer this amendment on a program that has worked from the time that Jack Kemp started it in 1988. The city of Albany will be affected. The city of Los Angeles will be affected. Every single major community and minor community in this country will be affected, and I think it is absolutely unfair, unfair that we are denied the opportunity to offer the amendment and the money. The proof in the pudding is the money that is used for this program. Rather than being spent on drug elimination, it is going to be bankrolled into a little account over in the Committee on Ways and Means to give tax breaks to the privileged few in this country. It is absolutely wrong.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out to the gentleman that the funds in the bill at HUD have been cut by nearly 25 percent. Every mayor, including my own mayors in my district, and I represent several of them, do not have the luxury of being able to use money for this because they are so stressed out in the other accounts, sir. My colleague is going to make a lot of seniors pay more on their section 8 in their housing projects----

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

Ms. KAPTUR. If the gentleman will yield, you know, I feel sorry that the committee cannot conduct its business, but simply because that committee, under its so-called new leadership, cannot conduct its business, they have no right to eliminate these drug elimination programs around this country which are so successful. It would seem to me the Republican leadership of this House could find a way for me to offer this amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. I appreciate and I have great respect for the chairman. This is exactly where the rules process fails us, simply because the program has been operating since 1988, but because the House in committee has not acted, that program is not authorized. Therefore, if I try to offer this amendment, even though it is operating, I will be called on a point of order on the floor, Mr. Speaker. This is why I came before the committee.

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mine is not a cutting amendment, sir.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. It is my understanding that the amendment that I came before the committee to offer, which proposed [[Page H 7815]] that we transfer $290 million from FEMA to the drug elimination program in order to restore it because it was zeroed out in the committee, which I think is backward policy for this country, is not in order on this floor. If the chairman could, please, explain to me, based on what you have just said on the floor, is my amendment now in order?

Ms. KAPTUR. I ask the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], would he yield and answer my question, please, sir?

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a truly noble citizen from my district, Dr. Eva Shapiro. Dr. Shapiro died this year at the age of 100. She was born in Toledo, OH on November, 1894, the daughter of Russian immigrants. She grew up in a downtown neighborhood, as part of Toledo's Jewish community. Her grandfather, by the way, was Toledo's first Orthodox rabbi. Her father owned a small grocery store, and eventually started the first auto parts company in Toledo. Eva Shapiro initially wanted to be a physician, but couldn't afford 6 years of medical [[Page E 1522]] school. Instead, she applied for, and won, a generous scholarship from the local B'nai B'rith. They paid for 4 years of dental school at Western Reserve in Cleveland, where she earned her degree in 1918. She returned to Toledo and started her own practice. In those days, women dentists were not common, and she struggled at first--even the people from her own neighborhood were unwilling to let a woman take care of their teeth. But word spread that she did excellent work, and her practice grew. She was eventually able to pay back every nickle of that scholarship, so someone else could receive it. Dr. Shapiro was one of the founders of the Toledo Dental Dispensary (today the Dental Center of Northwest Ohio), a nonprofit clinic for needy children and adults. She served on the Board of Trustees of the Dispensary from 1923 to 1960. In her own words, * * * we knew we had to have a dental dispensary, and a free one, because there were many people in Toledo that just could not afford to go to the dentist. * * * I even gave as much money as I could, and so did the other [dentists], and they started a dental dispensary. * * * we have dentists there that are very fine dentists, and they do beautiful, beautiful work. Even with her practice and the time she spent as an active board member, Dr. Shapiro found time to be active in the Jewish Women's Council, Temple B'nai Israel, and the Toledo Museum of Art. She also gave energy and money to countless local charities. In an interview 10 years ago, Dr. Shapiro said, Yes, I have no complaints. I think I had the best life that anybody could have. I had everything that I needed--the education. In those days what girl got a college education? Dr. Eva Shapiro's energy, her unhesitating willingness to help those in need, and her love of life should be an example to us all. Toledoans are privileged to have known her and have been inspired by her pioneering life. We will cherish her memory.