Lucille Roybal-Allard

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to the Goodling amendment to H.R. 417. This amendment is yet another attempt to cripple the ability of unions to effectively participate in the political affairs of the nation and advocate on behalf of our working families. Mr. Goodling's amendment, which is identical to the bill H.R. 2434, would require labor unions to obtain written authorization from all union members before using any portion of union dues for political activities. This legislation infringes on the right of workers to establish their own rules regarding union membership. In addition, the amendment imposes costly, crippling paperwork requirements and effectively imposes a punitive tax on all union members. At the same time, however, the amendment does not require corporations to go through this cumbersome and costly process in order to obtain authorization from their shareholders before using corporate funds for political activities. This is hypocrisy at its best. Further, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that workers have the right to refuse to contribute to their union's political activities. This ruling is already incorporated into the text of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. Finally, not only is the Goodling amendment bad policy, it is also a poison pill that, if passed, would ensure that this much-needed campaign finance bill would fail. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that this amendment is not about ``paycheck protection for workers.'' It is about the systematic disenfranchisement of American workers such as our teachers, nurses, police officers and factory workers. I urge my colleagues to defeat this harmful, hypocritical, and unnecessary amendment.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bereuter-Wicker amendment which prevents legal permanent residents from making campaign contributions. At first glance, this amendment seems innocuous. Why would we want anyone other than U.S. citizens to participate in our political process? Legal permanent residents can't vote; why should they be able to contribute to elections? Hasn't it been proven through prosecutions during the last several years that foreign nationals can't be trusted to participate in the election process? First, legal permanent residents are tax-paying residents of the United States. They are also subject to the draft; in fact, more than 20,000 legal permanent residents are serving honorably at the present time in the U.S. Armed Forces. Many legal permanent residents have filed for U.S. citizenship and are merely waiting for a lengthy naturalization process to be completed. Second, legal permanent residents are already part of our political process. We count them in the census. They determine congressional representation, and, in representing a state or a congressional district, a Member of Congress is entrusted with representing them as well as U.S. citizens residing there. Finally, the prosecutions of a few foreign nationals during the last few years prove nothing. In fact, they emphasize that we make an enormous mistake if we leap to such judgments about entire ethnic groups based on the illegal and reprehensible deeds of a few. But discrimination is an important issue. How would the proponents of this amendment enforce such a stipulation? We have to assume that each and every campaign contributor would need to be queried about the status of their U.S. citizenship. And who is most likely to be queried at a fund-raising event? Obviously, those with ethnic looks or those who speak broken English or have an ethnic accent. Ultimately, this amendment could inhibit the participation of ethnic Americans. What candidate or campaign worker would risk accepting or soliciting a contribution from a person who looks foreign, speaks with an accent, or has an ethnic name? The Supreme Court has ruled that spending on campaigns is a form of speech and is protected by the first amendment. The first amendment applies to everyone living in the United States, not just U.S. citizens. It is therefore ironic that those who want to defeat the Shays-Meehan bill today and oppose efforts to reform campaign finance laws based on the argument that restrictions inhibit the exercise of free speech, are the first ones to lineup in favor of this amendment that will take away one form of free speech from legal permanent residents. I urge my colleagues to oppose this attempt to undermine the first amendment. I urge my colleagues to fight against the type of ethnic discrimination that would surely arise from adoption of such a provision. I urge my colleagues to support the full participation of legal permanent residents in our political system, as we demonstrate what U.S. democracy truly means.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strongest opposition to H.R. 2684, the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. As we approach the final stretch of the appropriations process, I would like to be able to support this legislation, which is one of our largest domestic funding bills. Regretfully, I cannot. In spite of the hard work of my colleagues, Chairman James Walsh and Ranking Member Alan Mollohan, who did their best under difficult budgetary constraints, this bill makes unacceptable cuts to essential housing, science, space, environmental, and veteran programs. For example, this bill funds the Department of Housing and Urban Development at $26.1 billion--nearly $2 billion below the administration's request. This translates into cuts in all of HUD's major programs including the Community Development Block Grant program, HOME program, public housing capital assistance, drug elimination grants, homeless programs, fair housing activities, Brownfields cleanup and development, lead-based paint abatement and housing for persons with AIDS. The residents of L.A. County, where housing demand is more than three times higher than the rest of the nation and rents are at record levels, will be devastated. I have received dozens of letters from service and housing providers in Los Angeles decrying these proposed cuts. They state over and over again that these cuts will severely undermine their ability to serve our homeless veterans and working families. For example, Los Angeles County's average apartment rent is a startling $982 a month, 19% higher than the national average. This June, Southern California's median home price hit an all-time high of $204,000. These trends are troubling for a number of reasons: Rising rents means our working families will be forced to double or triple-up, leading to severe overcrowding. In fact, the LA Housing Department estimates that 25% of poor renters already live in overcrowded conditions, many of them having 7 or more people sharing a two-bedroom apartment. Rising rents also means that many families will be forced to seek cheaper housing inland, leading to longer commutes, more freeway congestion, and more smog. Rising rents is also bad for business, as it makes it more difficult for growing companies to attract workers, making them less competitive and forcing them to leave the area. Furthermore, this bill makes unacceptable cuts to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, better known as NASA. The bill butchers NASA's budget by a whopping $1 billion--a 7% cut from last year's level. Programs facing the Republican scalpel include basic research in astronomy, earth science and space science. NASA Administrator Dan Goldin has stated that these cuts will decimate key elements of the nation's space program, requiring the largest restructuring since the end of the Apollo program. This bill's cuts to NASA will effectively decimate the nation's future space science program, making substantial reductions in the Explorer programs, the Discovery program and Supporting Research and Technology, all mainstays of university research. Upcoming missions managed by scientists at the University of California campuses will also be impacted, including the Mars Polar Lander mission at UCLA, Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer Observatory at UC Berkeley, and the Triana Satellite at UC San Diego. The bill also reduces the National Science Foundation's budget by $24 million from last year's level and $275 million less than requested by the Administration. NSF supports basic research that's fundamentally important to all aspects of our lives, from basic biological research to information technology. At a time when we are grappling with the need to improve our schoolchildren's math and science skills, this cut will deprive thousands of teachers the training they need in these very fields. Basic research is also vital to maintaining this nation's preeminence in science and space exploration into the next century. Our California universities in particular are extremely concerned about the impact of these reductions on university-based research. California receives over 10% of all National Science Foundation's research grants and these cuts will limit the number of grants to promising new researchers to dangerously low levels. To add insult to injury, Republicans at the last minute restored $400 million to NASA's budget, but at the expense of the AmeriCorps national service program. This cut to AmeriCorps' budget essentially terminates the highly successful domestic Peace Corps. AmeriCorps members-- tackling critical problems like illiteracy, crime and poverty--have served nearly 33 million people in more than 4,000 communities. Promoting the American ideals of community involvement, national service and civic participation, AmeriCorps members have taught, tutored or mentored more than 2.6 million children, served 564,000 at- risk youth in after-school programs, operated 40,500 safety patrols, rehabilitated 25,000 homes, aided more than 2.4 million homeless individuals and immunized 419,000 people. Cutting this highly successful program is unacceptable. Lastly, this bill underfunds medical care for our deserving veterans. Veterans are telling us that this bill is still $1.3 billion below what the Veterans' Administration needs just to maintain current services. While the Appropriations Committee added $700 million to the VA account, they rejected an attempt to restore even more funding. My colleague from Texas, Representative Chet Edwards, offered an amendment to increase veterans health care spending by an additional $730 million. Mindful of the need to be fiscally responsible, Mr. Edwards proposed to pay for this increase by delaying the proposed cut in the capital gains tax, which is one the prized goodies included in Republican leadership's tax bill. This amendment failed on a party line vote, reaffirming that Republicans prefer to hand out benefits to the rich than provide health care benefits for veterans. I have no choice but to oppose this draconian bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2670, the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2000. This is my first year on the Appropriations Committee as well as on the Commerce-Justice Subcommittee, and I have very much enjoyed my tenure so far. Chairman Hal Rogers, who has served on the subcommittee for many years and who demonstrated his experience through weeks of budget oversight hearings, graciously welcomed my participation and made me and other new members of the subcommittee feel at home. The new members also include Jose Serrano, who has been a pleasure to work with and has demonstrated outstanding ability as ranking member. The wide range of agencies and activities funded by the bill present a real challenge. The FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Prisons in the Department of Justice and the trade, science, and economic development activities of the Department of Commerce as well as the operations of the State Department, create significant budget tensions as we wrestle with the fairest way in which to distribute our limited budget allocation. In addition to the entire judicial branch of government, the bill also funds important independent agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Small Business Administration (SBA). To say this is a complex bill to put together and to fund adequately is an understatement. I would like to thank Chairman Rogers for including a number of projects and issues that are important to me, my congressional district and California. Funding is included for two important crime prevention activities which affect my district directly. The Los Angeles Dads Young Men and Fathers Program is a collaborative effort between the juvenile court and community schools and the Los Angeles County Probation Department working together with law enforcement, business and community partners. This program reaches out to males, ages 14 to 18, who are under the authority of the Juvenile Court and are either fathers themselves or father figures. The goal is to help young fathers take responsibility for the health and well-being of their families and themselves. Funding is also provided for a community violence initiative in Los Angeles that will expand the successful LAPD domestic abuse response team that both deals with women and children at the scene and allocates special investigative and prosecution services to act quickly against crimes of domestic violence. I was also pleased that the full committee adopted report language about sexual misconduct by staff of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The Bureau of Prisons generally has a good record of dealing with sexual misconduct by staff and sexual harassment of female inmates. However, a recent General Accounting Office report revealed that there were some deficiencies in the records maintained by BOP about sexual abuse that prevented them from recognizing trends and responding to problem areas. The language directs BOP to comply with the GAO recommendations, and I'm pleased that BOP already is moving ahead to do so. Several items are of enormous importance to California. The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) is funded at last year's funding level, $585 million. However, I will be working with other members of a united California delegation to see if we can't increase this funding level to $650 million this year. California will spend over $570 million this year for housing and parole supervision of undocumented aliens. Since California receives only a portion of this SCAAP funding, it is important to raise this funding level as high as possible. Within Community Oriented Policing Services, the methamphetamine program is very important to California. Recent Justice Department statistics indicate that 90% of the ``meth'' seized throughout the United States originated in California. These funds will assist the California Bureau of Narcotics in coping with this newer but alarming drug threat. As a coastal state, California is very dependent on the important oceanic and atmospheric research underway by NOAA's National Ocean Service. Funding for the geodesy programs will play a key role in the important research underway at the Scripps Institute at the University of California at San Diego and its California Spatial Reference Center. Despite these many worthwhile initiatives, I will reluctantly have to vote against the bill. Simply put, this bill's budget allocation is not sufficient to fund the many other deserving programs and activities carried out by the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce. Trying to overcome this inadequate funding, the Republican majority has decided to designate $4.5 billion for the census to be emergency spending outside the budget caps and our budget allocation. However, the total amount is still nearly $3 billion less than the President's budget request. As a result, many programs or agencies are cut severely, and other important agencies are set at the level of last year's appropriations bill, meaning they must absorb both cost-of- living adjustments for personnel and other uncontrollable cost increases. In addition, the bill provides no funding for the President's 21st Century policing initiative modeled after the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) initiative which has been so successful in helping our cities and communities reduce crime. The original committee recommendation cut Legal Services Corporation severely--from $300 million to $141 million--thereby undermining our commitment to ensuring that all Americans, regardless of income, have access to the judicial system. Reduced funding affects the FBI, the DEA, anti-drug program initiatives as well as activities to protect against chemical and biological weapons and other counter-terrorism activities. The successful Advanced Technology Program, which Congress has established at a level of approximately $200 million for many years, is eliminated. Inadequate funding is provided for the President's Lands Legacy initiative, and other National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) funding is significantly reduced. The SBA's salaries and expenses account is cut so severely that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that 75 percent of the agency's current staff level--up to 2,400 staff positions--would have to be eliminated. There is no funding for SBA's promising new markets initiatives which many of us are counting on to spur economic development in targeted urban and rural areas. In short, the funding is inadequate, so our bill falls short of what the American people require and should expect from the important programs and agencies in this bill. I believe Chairman Rogers and those who serve on this subcommittee recognize its shortcomings, and I believe we will need to make this a far better bill before it becomes law later this year. Although I must in all good conscience vote against the bill today, I will be working with Chairman Rogers, Ranking Democrat Serrano and the rest of our members to fund this bill adequately and pass it into law so our people and our communities can continue to receive the types of assistance provided in this bill, and we can work together to fight crime, improve trade, stimulate economic development, and carry out the many important activities represented by the Commerce-Justice-State bill.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2031, the 21st Amendment Enforcement Act. H.R. 2031's proponents contend that it will address the problem of illegal sales to minors over the Internet. I strongly support cracking down on underage drinking, but this bill does nothing to address this serious problem. Rather, H.R. 2031 is nothing more than an intra- industry battle between liquor wholesalers and Internet liquor retailers. Under the guise of protecting minors from Internet alcohol sales, this bill's true intent is to tie up Internet liquor retailers in federal litigation. Supporters of this legislation have failed to provide evidence of any wide-spread problem with illegal, under-age Internet alcohol sales. In fact, in California, we have had telephone and mail-ordered wine deliveries since 1963 and our law enforcement agencies report they have not encountered problems with these deliveries. Moreover, legitimate concerns over underage Internet purchases of alcohol have been adequately addressed by the industry's practice of visibly labeling shipping packages as containing alcohol and requiring the signature of persons over the age of 21 for receipt. Finally, state and federal enforcement mechanisms already exist to address illegal alcohol sales. H.R. 2031 will add a duplicative and unnecessary layer to already existing law. I find it ironic that one of the chief proponents of this bill, the National Beer Wholesalers Association, actively opposed my efforts to include language in the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Bill to include underage drinking in the billion-dollar anti-drug media campaign administered by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. If the National Beer Wholesalers are so devoted to fighting underage drinking, you would think they would have joined forces with me. Instead, they fought tooth and nail against establishing an effective effort to combat illegal alcohol use by teenagers. Not only is this bill bad policy, it's also anti-business. As small vintners in California and across the nation seek innovative ways to promote their quality product, they are naturally looking at the marketing opportunities presented by the Internet. This bill would work directly against such marketing and trade opportunities. Direct access has been a long-standing problem for the 1,600 family- owned wineries who compete with the 10 mega-wineries that produce 90% of the wine in the United States. Wholesalers cannot supply all of the unique wines available from smaller wineries to the majority of consumers and thus, these small wineries are excluded from the national market. The Internet is a vital sales tool for the small wineries to directly promote their wines to consumers. H.R. 2031's true design is simple: it would protect wholesalers of wine, beer and distilled spirits from Internet competition. I urge my colleagues to defeat this proposal and work instead to promote interstate trade. Let's support the 1,600 small wineries in California and across the United States who are using their good business sense to expand markets and create jobs in their communities.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, the Foreign Operations Appropriation bill for fiscal year 2000 that was reported by the appropriations subcommittee, was a fair and bipartisan bill, given the tight funding restrictions. Although the subcommittee's allocation of $12.8 million was $2.7 million below the FY 1999 funding level, I am pleased that the panel included increases in critical programs such as, the Child Survival Account and the Assistance for Displaced and Orphaned and Children Account within U.S.A.I.D. These programs provide critically needed assistance to sick, needy, and orphaned children in developing countries. I would like thank Chairman Sonny Callahan and Ranking Member Nancy Pelosi for including $34 million, for the U.S. Agency for International Development's Collaborative Research Support Programs--a 100% increase over last year's funding. This program utilizes our leading universities, including the University of California, to help developing countries make improvements in agriculture. Supporting agricultural research is critical because we know that political stability is largely dependent on a developing country's ability to maintain a stable food supply. The Collaborative Research Support Program helps developing counties achieve this goal, thereby furthering our own interests as well as theirs. However, despite the increases in these valuable programs, I must strongly object to the $200 million that was cut from the World Bank's International Development Association at the direction of the Republican leadership. Cutting funds from this multilateral development program sends a message to other member-countries that the U.S. believes it is O.K. to shirk one's responsibility to developing countries. We should not send this message. I object, not only to the substance of this cut, but also to the manner in which this cut was made. As I previously stated, the bill reported out of subcommittee was a fair, bi-partisan bill. Unfortunately, the continuing insistence of the Republican leadership to make last minute cuts to our appropriations bills during full committee and House floor consideration has sorely undermined what should be a bi-partisan process. Not providing responsible levels of funding for our government programs not only hurts our country, but results in increased emergency spending in the long run. While I will vote in favor of the bill in order to move the process along, it is my hope that the Republican leadership will recognize the short-sightedness of this strategy and restore this bill and others to their original funding levels.

Mrs. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Mrs. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2000, and I compliment the job of my two colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee Chairman Ron Packard and Ranking Member Peter Visclosky, on their first year in their respective roles. The Energy and Water Appropriations bill is always of great importance to California because of its impact on our harbors and waterways, and the need to protect our residents from natural disasters such as flooding. I will focus on a number of projects that are of specific importance to my constituents in the 33rd Congressional District as well as the entire Los Angeles area. One of the most important projcts for my constituents is the Los Angeles County Drainage Area flood control project along the Los Angeles and Rio Hondo Rivers, known as the ``LACDA'' project. This project was recommended by a task force of government agencies, environmental groups, and neighborhood groups. My constituents and other residents along the Los Angeles River are impacted directly because each year of project delay costs local residents as much as $130 million in flood insurance premiums as well as the adverse economic impact associated with building restrictions within the flood plain. Fortunately, FEMA has given us an indefinite postponement of flood insurance increases, but I am pleased that the final increment of this funding has been provided so we can bring the much-needed protection to my constitutes. The LACDA project will restore an adequate level of flood protection to 500,000 people and 177,000 structures, and it will affect 11 cites over 82 square miles in Los Angeles County. Without the LACDA project, an estimated $2.3 billion in damages would result from a large storm event. I am also pleased that the bill provides the funding to complete the next phase of the Pier 400 construction project in Los Angeles Harbor. This project will create an additional 315 acres of new land at Pier 400 upon which new state-of-the-art marine terminals will be built. In addition, a deep draft navigation project will be completed in order to accommodate the next generation of larger container ships. The Corps of Engineers has already made this project a top priority by reprogramming funds in order to maintain an optimal construction schedule. Although I was disappointed that funds for the pre-construction, engineering and design phase of the main channel deepening project have not been included, I look forward to working with the committee once this project has been formally authorized to continue these needed improvements to Los Angeles Harbor. This bill also provides funds for clean-up of the San Gabriel Basin. The San Gabriel groundwater basin is the primary source of drinking water for about one million residents in the San Gabriel Valley. Unfortunately, the groundwater is contaminated with both organic and inorganic compounds, so I am pleased that funds have been included in the bill to get the clean-up project underway. My constituents may draw their water from the Central Basin, but this project is still important to them. If we do not undertake the cleanup of these contaminated sediments in a timely fashion, we run the real risk of contamination of the Central Basin, serving 1.4 million Los Angeles County residents, including my constituents in Vernon, Cudahy, Maywood, Bell, Bell Gardens and South Gate. Finally, as a member of the House Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China, I understand the Committee's concern with the Department of Energy's national security programs centered around its weapons' laboratories. Given the recent revelations regarding Chinese espionage at our national labs, these concerns are valid and timely. However, I have serious reservations about the way the Committee has chosen to address this issue. It may be the practice for the Appropriations Committee to delay obligating funds to an agency in order to correct a problem, achieve a specific end, or perhaps just to send a message. In this case, however, the withholding of $1 billion in funding from DOE's nuclear weapons program until June 30, 2000, is overly harsh and, in my view, unnecessary. That level of funding amounts to one-fourth of the Department's total funding for weapons activities. Restricting these funds for the majority of the fiscal year would seriously hamper DOE's ability to carry out its weapons-related research and functions. Further, both the House and the Senate are already addressing this issue. Just last week, the Senate passed an amendment to the Intelligence Authorization bill which establishes a separately organized Agency for Nuclear Stewardship to be headed by a new Under- Secretary who will report directly to the Secretary of Energy. Within this new agency, a separate office focusing on counter-intelligence would be established with a direct line to the new Under-Secretary as well as the Energy Secretary. The House-passed version of the bill includes several recommendations to increase security at the labs that were agreed to by our bi-partisan Select Committee. Further, the House Science Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the House Select Intelligence Committee are all looking into this matter, and a free- standing bill is expected to be ready sometime this summer. With the House and Senate already taking meaningful steps to address the security problems at DOE, this funding restriction is unnecessary and will only serve to further hamper the Department's efforts to address these security concerns while carrying out day-to-day functions. I would, therefore, urge the Committee to drop this harmful provision. Again, I compliment Chairman Packard and Ranking Democrat Peter Visclosky for putting together a well-balanced bill that makes progress on many projects of importance to my constituents, my state and the nation.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join my women colleagues to commemorate Title IX's successes and achievements. First, I would like to commend my colleague and friend, Congresswoman Patsy Mink, as well as former Oregon Congresswoman Edith Green who authored and initiated Title IX over 20 years ago. Their contributions in support of equal opportunity for women have been invaluable. Signed into law in 1972, Title IX is the landmark civil rights law that banned sex discrimination in schools in both academics and athletics. While the law applied to all education programs in schools receiving federal aid, it has become best known for expanding athletic opportunities for women. Since Title IX's passage, women's participation in intercollegiate sports has skyrocketed: When Title IX was first passed, there were 31,000 women participating in intercollegiate athletics. Today, that number is over 120,000--a four-fold increase. A recent survey showed that the number of women's collegiate teams have risen from 5.6 teams per school in 1977 to 7.5 in 1996. Simply put, Title IX has been a smashing success for women's collegiate sports, which were virtually non-existent in the early 1970's. But critics still like to lambaste Title IX, alleging that it's decimated men's sports or gone too far. Let's put these tired old myths about Title IX to rest: Myth #1: Title IX enforces quotas against men. Nothing could be further from the truth. Title IX forbids quotas. It simply prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. That means female students must have equal opportunities to participate in education programs, including athletics. Utilizing a three-prong test, schools can show they comply with Title IX by fulfilling one of three requirements, offering schools flexibility and ample room for Title IX compliance. Myth #2: Title IX will cause the elimination of men's collegiate sports. Title IX does not require schools to cut men's sports. Nor has Title IX ever forced a school to eliminate a men's sports program to meet compliance. Many schools have decided to cut teams in men's minor sports, such as gymnastics and wrestling, for a combination of reasons, including budget constraints, changes in student interest, alumni support, liability or risk of injury. Let's not forget that football and basketball budgets consume a whopping 69% of the average Division I-A school's men's athletic operating budget. Perhaps Title IX critics should point their finger at poor fiscal management or excessive support for one sport--not at Title IX--for the decline in men's sports. Myth #3: Title IX has gone too far. Despite Title IX's successes, we still have a long way to go. The fact is that women's athletics continue to lag behind men's programs. Compared to men, female athletes have only 38% of scholarships. From 1992-1997, men's athletic budgets, in Division 1-A alone, increased by 139%. In contrast, women's budget increased during this time period by 89%. From fewer scholarships, to inferior athletic equipment and facilities, the playing field for female athletes is far from level. We need Title IX now more than ever. Finally, the latest myth about Title IX is this: Title IX cannot be credited for the country's stunning success in women's soccer, because we produced the finest soccer players through independent youth leagues, outside the scope of Title IX. Let me quote a recent article in the latest edition of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard: ``Title IX could not possibly have had anything to do with the team's success . . . seven of this year's eleven starters . . . all joined the U.S. national squad as teenagers in the 1980s--Title IX's `dark ages'''. Where do Title IX critics think these women played while they were college-age? They played at universities with top-notch college soccer teams. It is the heralded successes of the University of North Carolina's women's soccer team, the University of Tennessee's women's basketball team, and other Division I-A teams and their recruitment of top female high school athletes that has been a driving force in promoting athletic programs at the high school level, both public and private. In fact, in high school, the number of female athletes has jumped from 294,000 in 1971 to 2.4 million in 1995. Indeed, Title IX has sent the message to our young women that they have far more opportunities to compete at the college level and to qualify for college scholarships than any prior generation. In closing, Title IX has helped put women's sports on the map, including swimming, gymnastics, softball, lacrosse, field hockey, track and field, basketball and soccer. But perhaps Title IX's most important triumph is that it tells our girls that they can be and do whatever they want--and that includes excelling in sports and academics.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to the Republican tax cut plan. This is a bad bill for a number of reasons: First, the $792 billion plus tax cut is fiscally irresponsible. To pay for this tax bill, Republicans would force drastic cuts in vital programs affecting health care, education, law enforcement, science and technology, the environment, agriculture and countless other programs. Moreover, when you deduct the promised increases for defense spending and set aside money to preserve Medicare and Social Security, no room is left for a tax cut of even half this size. Second, because many of the tax cuts included in this bill are phased in over time, the total future cost of this bill will be astronomical. While the projected cost of these cuts is $792 billion over the first ten years, the cost skyrockets to possibly more than $3 trillion in the second ten years, according to the Treasury Department. Finally, this huge tax cut does little to benefit middle and low income working families--those who need it the most. In fact, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a taxpayer watchdog group, close to half of the tax benefits in this bill would go to the richest one percent of American taxpayers--people making over $300,000. While I support cutting taxes, we must make sure that these tax cuts benefit hard-working low- and middle-income families. The Democratic alternative recognizes that all American families need to share in our booming economy--not just the ultra-rich. Towards this goal, the Democrats' bill includes marriage penalty tax relief for all married couples who need it--the Republican bill does not. For example, low-income families experience a marriage tax penalty in relation to the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC is a highly effective program which benefits millions of working families by providing them with a small credit to help make ends meet. However, when individuals receiving the EITC marry, their benefit is often significantly reduced or taken away. The Democratic alternative revises the Earned Income Tax Credit to relieve this marriage tax penalty. This simple act of fairness is missing from the Republican bill. In short, the Republican proposal is fiscally irresponsible, will result in devastating cuts to critically needed programs, and ignores low-income and middle-income families as it dispenses its benefits to the wealthy. I urge my colleagues to support the modest, even-handed Democratic tax relief package, which recognizes our long-term commitment to Medicare, Social Security and the many priorities we need to address this year and next. I urge my colleagues to oppose this irresponsible Republican bill.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, today, I, along with my colleague Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson, am introducing the Folic Acid Promotion and Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1999. This bipartisan bill, with 102 Democratic and Republican original cosponsors, is being introduced in the Senate by Senators Abraham, Kohl, and Bond. The Folic Acid Promotion and Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1999 will provide for a national folic acid education program to prevent birth defects. Each year an estimated 2,500 babies are born in the United States with serious birth defects of the brain and spine, called neural tube defects. These neural tube defects cause crippling lifelong physical disabilities and at times, even death. However, up to 70 percent of neural tube defects could be prevented if women of childbearing age consumed 400 micrograms of folic acid daily. That means women need to eat a healthy diet and take a daily multivitamin. It's that simple. Women need to be taking folic acid before and during their first trimester of pregnancy because these neural tube defects occur very early in pregnancy, before most women know that they are pregnant and because roughly 50 percent of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned. The problem is that the majority of women are not aware of the benefits of folic acid. A 1997 March of Dimes national survey found that only 30 percent of women take a multivitamin with folic acid before pregnancy. There is an urgent need to teach women about the importance of increasing their consumption of folic acid by taking a daily vitamin pill, eating more fortified cereal grain products, and eating food naturally rich in folic acid. Nationwide, Hispanic women have the highest rates of neural tube defects. In fact, in my home State of California, Hispanic mothers have the highest number of cases of neural tube defects than any other racial group and Mexican-born mothers have twice the risk of having babies with neural tube defects compared to United States-born mothers. The Folic Acid Promotion and Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1999 will amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for a national folic acid education program to prevent birth defects. This bill authorizes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in partnership with states and local public and private entities, to launch an education and public awareness campaign, conduct research to identify effective strategies for increasing folic acid consumption by women of reproductive capacity, and evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies. The Folic Acid Promotion and Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1999 is supported by leading health organization, including the March of Dimes Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates and Practitioners, Council for Responsible Nutrition, American Association of University Affiliated Programs for Persons with Developmental Disabilities, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Nurse-Midwives, American Public Health Association, Council of Women's and Infants' Specialty Hospitals, Easter Seals, National Association of County and City Health Officials, National Women's Health Network, and the Spina Bifida Association of America. I would like to recognize the March of Dimes, the National Council on Folic Acid and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for their leadership and steadfast commitment to this issue. I would especially like to thank Jody Adams and here daughter, the March of Dimes Ambassador Kelsey Adams, for their hard work in publicizing this simple, yet highly effective, prevention strategy. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues, Congresswoman Jo ann Emerson, as well as Senators Abraham, Kohl, and Bond for their hard work in raising awareness about this vitally important issue. By getting the message out, we can help families across the country have healthy babies and save the lives of thousands of babies each year.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, today, I, along with my colleague Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson, am introducing the Folic Acid Promotion and Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1999. This bipartisan bill, with 102 Democratic and Republican original cosponsors, is being introduced in the Senate by Senators Abraham, Kohl and Bond. The Folic Acid Promotion and Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1999 will provide for a national folic acid education program to prevent birth defects. Each year an estimated 2,500 babies are born in the United States with serious birth defects of the brain and spine, called neural tube defects. These neural tube defects cause crippling lifelong physical disabilities and at times, even death. However, up to 70% of neural tube birth defects could be prevented if women of childbearing age consumed 400 micrograms of folic acid daily. That means women need to eat a healthy diet and take a daily multivitamin. It's that simple. Women need to be taking folic acid before and during their first trimester of pregnancy because these neural tube defects occur very early in pregnancy, before most women know that they are pregnant and because roughly 50% of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned. The problem is that the majority of women are not aware of the benefits of folic acid. A 1997 March of Dimes national survey found that only 30% of women take a multivitamin with folic acid before pregnancy. There is an urgent need to teach women about the importance of increasing their consumption of folic acid by taking a daily vitamin pill, eating more fortified cereal grain products and eating food naturally rich in folic acid. Nationwide, Hispanic women have the highest rates of neural tube defects. In fact, in my home state of California, Hispanic mothers have the highest number of cases of neural tube defects than any other racial group and Mexican-born mothers have twice the risk of having babies with neural tube defects compared to U.S.-born mothers. The Folic Acid Promotion and Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1999 will amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for a national folic acid education program to prevent birth defects. This bill authorizes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in partnership with states and local public and private entities, to launch an education and public awareness campaign, conduct research to identify effective strategies for increasing folic acid consumption by women of reproductive capacity, and evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies. The Folic Acid Promotion and Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1999 is supported by leading health organizations, including the March of Dimes, Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates and Practitioners, Council for Responsible Nutrition, American Association of University Affiliated Programs for Persons with Developmental Disabilities, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Nurse-Midwives, American Public Health Association, Council of Women's and Infants' Specialty Hospitals, Easter Seals, National Association of County and City Health Officials, National Women's Health Network, and the Spina Bifida Association of America. I would like to recognize the March of Dimes, the National Council on Folic Acid and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for their leadership and steadfast commitment to this issue. I would especially like to thank Jody Adams and her daughter, the March of Dimes Ambassador Kelsey Adams, for their hard work in publicizing this simple, yet highly effective, prevention strategy. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues, Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson, as well as Senators Abraham, Kohl and Bond for their hard work in raising awareness about this vitally important issue. By getting the message out, we can help families across the country have healthy babies and save the lives of thousands of babies each year.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 2490, the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. This is my first year as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and as a member of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, I had high hopes of supporting this bill throughout the legislative process. The bill reported out of our subcommittee was a sound one, unanimously supported by the subcommittee members. It maintained current services for the important agencies within the jurisdiction of the bill. Unfortunately, during consideration by the full Committee on Appropriations, nearly $240 million was cut from the bill at the direction of the Republican leadership. Responding to a small minority of the Republican party which sought to control the budget process this year, this cut was passed by the Committee on Appropriations on a party line vote. This cut would prevent us from going forward with reforms of the Internal Revenue Service passed just last year. By cutting $100 million from GSA's repair account, we adopt a policy that will only end up costing the American taxpayer much more in the long run for increased repair costs made necessary by deferred maintenance. This reduction in GSA's budget is in addition to the fact that no funding is provided in the bill this year for new courthouse planning and construction. This lack of funding affects my district very directly because the proposed new Federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles is first on the priority list. In fact, the Los Angeles courthouse was officially out of space in 1995, and the current facility has life-threatening security deficiencies, according to the U.S. Marshall's Service. Finally, I was also extremely disappointed that the full committee voted to strike a provision that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I included at subcommittee giving the Office of National Drug Control Policy the authority to address underage drinking in their youth antidrug media campaign. Research has shown that alcohol is an important gateway drug leading to the use of other illegal drugs. Young people who drink are 22 times more likely to smoke marijuana and 50 times more likely to use cocaine than those who do not drink. Conducting an antidrug media campaign that does not address the linkage seriously hampers its overall effectiveness, and I will continue to work with the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and others to include this important message in our antidrug strategy. In short, this was originally a good bill, but pressure from the Republican right wing has turned it into a bad bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, to send the message that we need to fund our agencies adequately. I sincerely hope that we will come to our senses later in the legislative process and make this bill the bipartisan product that it once was and still can become.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by our colleague, Carolyn Maloney, to permit breast-feeding in federal buildings or on federal property. Congresswoman Maloney has been a leader in promoting the importance of breast-feeding and in removing the obstacles facing nursing mothers. Based on legislation Ms. Maloney introduced, I offered an amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill permitting breast-feeding in our national parks and Washington-based museums and cultural attractions. Unfortunately, there had been a series of anecdotes where mothers were confronted by museum guards or park rangers while nursing their babies. I was pleased that the full appropriations committee unanimously accepted the amendment, and it was part of the bill that we passed last night. The amendment in front of us today would expand that same concept to federal buildings and federal property. Some colleagues have asked me: is this really a problem? That question goes to the real importance of this amendment. The fact is, we all know the benefits of breast-feeding. And this amendment ensures that women can continue to live the active lives that American society requires of them in the 1990's. It means women can be mothers and be all the other things we expect them to be. Who knows what daily activities will bring mothers and their nursing children in contact with the 8400 federal buildings nation-wide. For example, maybe a farm family is visting U-S-D-A to put the farm's crop insurance package together. Or maybe a new American is visiting the I-N-S to obtain visas for family members. Or maybe a small businesswoman has an appointment to receive technical advice from the S-B-A. Or maybe she and her child are mailing letters and packages at the post office. Or maybe a military family is going about its day-to-day activities on a military base. The undeniable fact of life is that hungry babies demand to be fed no matter where they are. And in 1999, American mothers and their children are everywhere. Unfortunately, breast-feeding obstacles are a fact of daily life. La Leche League International, the well-known breast- feeding organization, reports that up to 60 mothers a month contact them to inquire about their legal rights after being asked to stop breast-feeding by a security guard, a store manager, or someone else in authority. We can't transform the sensibilities of everyone overnight, but we can send a positive message to mothers and families trying to fulfill their responsibilities of everyday life in our increasingly complex society. The Maloney amendment is a positive step forward, and I urge my colleagues to support this strong signal of support to American mothers and families.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak briefly about a small but important provision in the Interior Appropriations Bill having to do with breast-feeding. When the Appropriations Committee marked up the bill on July 1, I offered an amendment which was supported by Chairman Ralph Regula and Ranking Democrat Norm Dicks, and I appreciate their support as well as the broad support given by the full committee. The amendment was added as a general provision to the bill, and it was approved unanimously. I would like to highlight the importance of my amendment by sharing several stories, some of which may appear on the surface to be humorous but some of which I assure you illustrate a very serious issue: the issue of breast-feeding. My first quote is from a story that was recently related to me: ``My friend and I were visiting the Holocaust Museum. I began nursing my son in the back corner of the bookstore. I was harassed by the bookstore clerk and 4 security guards before being allowed to leave.'' In another incident, while visiting the National Museum of Natural History, a guard instructed a Maryland woman who was breast-feeding her child to leave because, and I quote: ``no food or drink is allowed in the museum.'' It is important to note that a mother who was nearby feeding a child with a bottle was undisturbed. In yet another incident, a mother wrote about a confrontation at the National Gallery of Art. ``I was recently asked to leave the Sargent exhibit for breast- feeding my baby. The guard stated that I was ruining the gallery experience of other patrons--some of whom were viewing a portrait directly opposite me of the Madonna and child--breast feeding.'' Sadly, such incidences even happen in my own state of California. For example, a park ranger asked a woman visiting Yosemite National Park to stop nursing her child. It was only after the woman and her husband--who happened to be pediatrician--objected, that the ranger backed down. Although these are just anecdotes, I think they are indicative of a disturbing pattern--nursing mothers with their families on an outing to our parks and museums can't feed their hungry babies. The undeniable fact of life, however, is that hungry babies demand to be fed no matter where they are. Unfortunately, we don't know the full extent of the problem because most mothers when confronted, are publicly humiliated and quietly leave without protesting. However, our national parks and Washington-based museums and cultural attractions--which epitomize family-centered activities--should lead the way in promoting and defending the practice of breast-feeding. This important provision in the bill simply allows a woman to breast- feed her baby in a national park or a museum, if they are otherwise permitted to be there. Breast-feeding is a very natural and healthful activity, one of the best things that a mother can do to give her child a healthy start in life. We know that the benefits are not just confined to infancy--breast- fed babies are healthier, they have fewer allergies, and they have higher IQs. We know that breast-feeding is also good for mothers because it provides maternal protection against breast cancer and osteoporosis. I was frankly overwhelmed by the number of colleagues who came to me after my amendment was adopted to express support for protecting breast-feeding. In fact, based on the feedback we have received for this amendment, I believe this provision has much wider applicability, and I also support legislation introduced by our colleague, Carolyn Maloney, to extend this protection for breast-feeding nationwide as 13 states have already done. In the meantime, we should certainly be supporting family-friendly parks and museums, and I am grateful for the wide support that has permitted it to become part of this bill. I ask that Chairman Regula and Mr. Dicks try to retain this important provision during conference negotiations with the Senate. It sends a strong signal in support of American families across the Nation, and I believe it is something the House can take enormous pride in.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, in front of over 90,000 adoring fans, the United States Women's Team won the 1999 Women's World Cup. In an electrifying match, our team defeated China with a 5 to 4 penalty kick victory. The excellence of our team sends a powerful and positive message to the world about the importance of women's athletics and its value in building confidence, character and self-esteem for our young women. Saturday's victory represents a first in many ways. It was the largest women's world championship in history. Over 90,000 fans attended, a record for a women-only sporting event. Saturday's game was the most-watched soccer game ever on network televisions. This was the first Women's World Cup hosted by the United States. Over 30 matches were played before more than 650,000 fans in seven cities across the country. An unprecedented 16 nations participated, signaling a growth for women's soccer throughout the world. But Saturday's victory is important for many other reasons. Our team helped to raise soccer and women's sports to new levels, both in America and internationally. World Cup soccer has long been the venue for male players and is the most popular sport in the world. But, the Women's World Cup and the U.S. national team in particular showed us that women's soccer and women's sports can be just as captivating, just as athletic, just as powerful, and just as competitive as men's sports. What makes our team so special is that the U.S. women's national soccer program stands in stark contrast to many of its competitors who rely on a government-run or government-financed training system or a professional club to produce national teams. In contrast, our American women started in community-based amateur recreational leagues, and owe much to their parents, who have steadfastly driven their daughters to weekend soccer games and summer soccer camps. They have also relied on the high-caliber, but amateur, college sports system which provides top-notch athletic competition that, in turn, produces the top-notch athletes who can compete at this level. Key to this college competition is the valuable role Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments has played in first establishing, then strengthening college sports programs for women, creating opportunities both to participate and to compete at advanced levels in soccer and many other sports. But perhaps the finest trait exemplified by the Women's World Cup, and by the performance of the American team in particular, is the quest for excellence. Whether you are a rabid soccer fan or merely a casual observer, excellence is something we all recognize. The U.S. Team is renowned both here and around the world for its commitment to values that we can all appreciate: teamwork, sportsmanship and fair play. Their esprit d' corps has been emphasized in feature article after feature article, and has even been a distinctive theme in TV commercials over the past few weeks. Victory is wonderful, and victory is to be commended. But as long as we pursue excellence in our lives, as the U.S. national team has demonstrated time and time again, we can all be champions.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from a very special event at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Today, the main campus of the CDC was renamed the Edward R. Roybal CDC Campus, in honor of my father who served as a Member of this Chamber for 30 years. In addition, he was presented with the Champion of Prevention Award, CDC's most prestigious award, reserved for individuals who have made significant contributions to public health. Quoting CDC Director, Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan, ``All his life, no matter where or at what level he sat, Edward R. Roybal has made the public's health his personal and professional priority. His leadership has prevented the illness and health of many Americans.'' Many of my colleagues who served with my father during his tenure from 1963 to 1993 will recall his zeal and commitment to health promotion and disease prevention and the very special place CDC has in his heart. I hope that this and future Congresses will remember and emulate his belief in protecting the Nation's health and safety through prevention and applied research and programs. Our whole family is very proud of my father, but none more than my mother who has stood next to him through all his accomplishments and who through her support made many of those accomplishments possible.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1. Rather than updating our antiquated banking laws and bringing the United States financial system into the 21st century, H.R. 10 will leave consumers and our communities more vulnerable than ever before. Why should we allow for the unprecedented conglomeration of banks, securities firms, and insurance companies while at the same time we ignore the most modest provisions to protect our consumers? I am opposed to H.R. 10 for a number of reasons: H.R. 10 is missing important community reinvestment provisions. Specifically, the bill fails to extend the Community Reinvestment Act-- the CRA--to the banking activities of non-bank financial institutions that seek to affiliate with banks. In other words, if credit card companies, securities firms or insurers would like to offer traditional banking products such as checking accounts or loans, they should be subject to the CRA. Why should we make it easier for banks, brokers and insurance companies to merge without simultaneously modernizing and expanding the CRA? The CRA has averaged billions of dollars of investment into communities such as mine, where unemployment and poverty levels are still well above the national average. Low-income families, small businesses and small farmers have all benefited from the CRA through increased opportunities to purchase a home, and obtain start-up and business expansion loans. Let's strengthen it, not weaken it. H.R. 10 fails to crack down on insurance redlining. Missing from this bill is a modest, consumer-friendly provision, authored by my colleague Barbara Lee, which would combat redlining of neighborhoods by insurance companies. Excluding this provision will once again leave vast segments of our urban and rural communities vulnerable to discriminatory lending practices by some unscrupulous insurance companies. H.R. 10 isn't friendly to our thrifts and severely limits their viability. The bill grants the Federal Reserve significant and perhaps unwarranted new regulatory authority over unitary thrift holding companies. Thrifts have been critically important in serving the financial needs of low income and minority communities, particularly in the area of mortgage financing. Threats to the thrift charter would, therefore, disproportionately impact low income and minority communities. H.R. 10 permits the unprecedented pre-emption of stronger consumer- friendly state laws thereby undermining state authority and harming consumers. Under H.R. 10, progressive State banking laws such as those requiring low-cost checking accounts or prohibiting ATM surcharges would be weakened. H.R. 10 fails to provide strong financial and medical privacy protections. If we're going to allow H.R. 10 to accelerate mergers, create mega one-stop centers with access to information about millions of customers, we need to stop information from being disclosed to third parties and affiliates. Anything less is unacceptable. Certainly, we need to preserve America's financial leadership as we approach the 21st century. Certainly, we need to update our archaic laws so that U.S. companies are not at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. Certainly, we should promote convenient and affordable one-stop shopping for consumers in order to meet all of their financial needs. But not at the expense of consumer privacy. Nor at the expense of the Community Reinvestment Act. I am not willing to trade the so-called perks of financial modernization--efficiency, choice, convenience, one-stop-shopping--for the decimation of privacy rights and community reinvestment. It's that simple. Our nations consumers should be our number one priority as we contemplate the merits of H.R. 10. Unfortunately, H.R. 10 doesn't meet this threshold. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to support H.R. 1802, which will allow World War II Filipino veterans who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to move back to the Philippines and take a portion of these benefits with them. This long overdue and humanitarian gesture will allow many of these elderly and ailing Filipino veterans to return to their home country, reunite with their families and continue to receive the benefits they deserve. Our Filipino veterans fought with the understanding that they had earned the right to receive the same compensation and benefits given to other men and women who served our country during World War II. To the shame of our nation, this promise was never honored. Today's vote is a small step to correct this injustice and recognize these men as true heroes. In the South Pacific, Filipino soldiers fought alongside American soldiers in some of the bloodiest battles of the war. For almost four years, during the most intense and strategically important phases of World War II, more than 200,000 Filipinos fought side-by-side with Allied forces. It is my hope that the Senate will follow the House's lead so that we can sign this bill into law as soon as possible. But we still have much more to do--we need to once and for all restore full benefits for the Filipino veterans residing in this country in the same manner as furnished to our other U.S. veterans. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to erase this black mark on our country's history.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I regretfully rise in opposition to H.R. 1000. Our country's aviation system is integral to our nation's transportation system and there's no question we need to continue to invest in America's aviation infrastructure. The problem is that this bill takes the Aviation Trust Fund ``off- budget'' which means aviation taxes cannot be used for any other purpose, creating what's called a firewall around billions of dollars in aviation taxes. As a former member of the Budget Committee and a current member of the Appropriations Committee, I can safely say this makes a mockery of the budget process and threatens our surplus. Supporters of the bill argue that since the money in the aviation trust fund comes from aviation taxes, it should all be spent for aviation purposes. As a matter of tax fairness, federal taxes should be spent for their intended purposes. But this is simply a red-herring argument to justify placing aviation spending at the absolute head of the line in competition for federal funds. Furthermore, taking the trust fund off-budget means that there would be no budgetary constraints to control aviation spending. This is troubling for two reasons. First, why are we exempting aviation programs from the normal budget scrutiny that all other programs must endure? Do we really want to place aviation funding ahead of all other federal priorities such as education, health care, Medicare, or national defense? Second, taking the trust fund off-budget means we jeopardize our surplus. AIR-21 will spend $14.3 billion more over five years on airport construction, busting the budget caps. This additional funding, since it's not subject to the normal budget rules which require offsets, will be paid out of the surplus. While Republicans may be confused as to what their priorities are, Democrats are unified that any budget surplus should be dedicated to shoring up Social Security and Medicare. Let's be clear. This bill is nothing more than an attempt to put one small part of the budget ahead of the other. At the same time, it busts our spending caps, eviscerates any notion of reasonable fiscal discipline and handicaps our ability to preserve the surplus. If Congress feels we should increase the nation's investment in aviation, let's do that. But let's not permanently put one category of spending ahead of another. In the spirit of budget discipline and fairness, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, guns are not the only cause of youth violence. But the increasing tragedies from gun violence in our schools tell us that our children enjoy easy access to guns, and strong steps should be taken to restrict that access. We must not lose sight of our goal. Our goal is to keep our kids safe in school. That's what the tragedies in Littleton and Atlanta and Jonesboro and other suburban communities have pointed out in dramatic fashion--that even kids in our suburban high schools are not safe from gun violence. But instead of addressing this pressing issue, the Republican leadership has failed to act responsibly in a time of crisis. They have allowed months to pass since the tragedy of Littleton, Colorado before taking action to curb the gun violence that threatens our children throughout the country. And now that they have chosen to act, they do so with the ugly face of partisanship and irresponsibility. Columbine High School was a real tragedy, but it is no more significant than the tragedy that many of us experience in our districts every day. As a representative of an inner-city district, I know that the tragedy of gun violence to our young people and by our young people has had heart-breaking consequences in my district for many years. In just the last few months, there has been a series of violent incidents that involved youth and that I wish I could say were unusual. But unfortunately, they are all too frequent in my district. In Huntington Park, for example, two youngsters shot it out in front of city hall, wounding innocent bystanders. In southgate, Mayor Henry Gonzalez was shot in the head after a city council meeting when two youth attempted to rob him. Fortunately, Mayor Gonzalez survived the attack but he was severely wounded and spent weeks in intensive care. In southeast Los Angeles near Walnut Park, a series of drive-by shootings have taken place in recent weeks. The cancer of violence that has impacted major cities for years is now spreading across the country. We cannot ignore this crisis as we have in the past, nor can we effectively address it with diluted gun safety measures and feel-good juvenile crime provisions that do little, as the Republican leadership would have us do. I voted for the Brady bill and for the assault weapons ban, and the facts support that they have made an enormous difference in preventing easy access to weapons by criminals. The Justice Department tells us that the Brady bill has blocked over 400,000 illegal gun sales to felons, fugitives, stalkers, and other prohibited persons, but no law- abiding citizen has been stopped from buying a gun for sport or self- protection. In spite of these successful measures, the recent tragedies have made it apparent that even more needs to be done. In May, the Senate quickly passed some reasonable gun safety provisions to tighten up gun purchases at gun shows, to require safety locks on guns, and to ban large-capacity ammunition clips. The House could have also acted quickly to pass the same provisions and put a bill on the President's desk by Memorial Day. Instead, the Republican leadership ignored the American people, delayed action, and have now chosen to make a mockery of a bipartisan legislative process by allowing consideration of numerous amendments that have never been the subject of committee deliberation. Some believe that the delays since Memorial Day have been orchestrated to give the National Rifle Association time to mobilize their membership to weaken the safety measures passed by the Senate and ultimately kill them. Our actions today will demonstrate whether that charge has any validity. I support the McCarthy amendment which will strengthen the provisions in the bill affecting gun show transactions and close the loophole that permits our children to obtain guns in this unregulated manner. I support the amendment to ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. I also support the amendment that will require secure gun storage or safety devices for handguns. These are common-sense provisions that add an additional margin of safety for the millions of guns that are in circulation in the United States. Perhaps it is not all we should be doing to cut down on the gun violence that claims so many Americans each year. But it is a start, and it represents progress on these important issues. I urge my colleagues to support these reasonable efforts to keep our kids safe in school and to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Ms ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of our children's safety and in support of the McCarthy-Roukema amendment.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, thirty-six years ago today, President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act. In 1963, when this law was enacted, women earned only 58 cents for every dollar earned by men. Since then, women have made great strides. For example, women are now a major part of our Nation's workforce and have started their own businesses in record numbers. Women are being admitted to college and graduating at rates on par with men, often breaking into many fields which were formerly open only to men. Yet in spite of these gains, the wage gap between men and women still persists. Today women earn only 75 cents for every dollar a man earns, and for minority women, the wage gap is even greater. African American women earn 65 cents and Hispanic women only 55 cents for every dollar earned by a man. The tragedy of this wage discrepancy is highlighted by the fact that four out of every five households depend on a woman's income just to make ends meet. This crisis is further exacerbated by the rise in female-headed households, which makes women's income critical to the well-being of our Nation's children. When you consider that receiving less pay means that women will also have less retirement security, the enormity of the problem is magnified. For example, less than 40% of women in the private sector have pensions, and those with pensions receive 50% less than what men receive. This is a critical problem given that women tend to outlive men, often by several years. So, although women have made some gains since President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, clearly, much more needs to be done to erase the disparity in wages that exists between men and women in order to achieve true pay equity. Two bills have been introduced during this Congress that seek to remedy this wage disparity: H.R. 541, the Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, and H.R. 1271, the Fair Pay Act, introduced by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. The Paycheck Fairness Act strengthens current law by allowing women to collect damages for pay discrimination. It also ensures that employers who have taken steps to provide equal pay get the recognition they deserve. The Fair Pay Act prohibits wage discrimination based on sex, race, or national origin for work in equivalent jobs. I encourage my colleagues in Congress to support these important bills, and I urge the leadership of the House of Representatives to take action to address the issue of wage inequality in our country.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Select Committee on China, I rise in support of the Dicks/Cox amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill. Chairman Cox and Ranking Member Norm Dicks have crafted a responsible, bi-partisan amendment that addresses many of the problems the Select Committee found during its six month investigation. This amendment implements most of the President's recommendations for tightening security at our national labs, including establishing an independent Office of Counterintelligence at the Department of Energy with direct line to the Secretary of Energy. It requires polygraphing of all Department of Energy lab employees who have access to sensitive nuclear information, and increases the civil and criminal penalties for mishandling of classified information. The amendment also tightens the security of the computer system at the national labs. In addition, the amendment places a temporary moratorium on foreign visitors from sensitive countries to our national labs until these strong security and counter-intelligence measures are in place. It also requires, the Department of Energy to submit a comprehensive annual report to Congress on security and counterintelligence at all DOE defense facilities to ensure that these measures are indeed protecting our national security. In the area of technology exports, the amendment implements many of the Select Committee's recommendations, including requiring a comprehensive report on the adequacy of current export controls in preventing the loss of militarily significant technology to China. It also requires a report on the effect of High Performance Computers sold to China, and requires that the President negotiate with China to ensure that the computers we export to them are used for their stated purpose. Another area that the committee investigated was the adequacy of U.S. policies regarding security at Chinese satellite launch sides. Unfortunately, what we found was that there are numerous problems with the security personnel hired by U.S. satellite companies. These include, guards sleeping on the job, an insufficient number of security personnel at launch site, and guards reporting to work under the influence of alcohol. The committee also found numerous deficiencies in the Defense Department's monitoring an oversight of satellite launches in China. Therefore, I am pleased that the Dicks/Cox amendment includes provisions to address these problems, such as mandating new minimum standards for security guards on satellite launch campaigns, requiring the Department of Defense to develop technology transfer control plans and requiring that the Department of Defense contract the guard force for security at the launch sites. Finally, the amendment ensures that the Defense Department monitors assigned to foreign launches have the adequate training and support to properly execute their jobs. In closing, I'd like to echo the statements of my colleagues on the Select Committee. Many of the findings contained in the Cox Committee report are indeed grave. This responsible amendment is an important first step towards addressing these findings and ensuring that our national security is protected. For that reason, I hope my colleagues in Congress will vote in favor of this important, bipartisan amendment.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 1906, the Agriculture Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2000. It had been my intention to support H.R. 1906 because it contains many worthy, programs that are of benefit not just to our farmers, but to all Americans. However, in a last-minute ploy, the Republican leadership decided to make deep cuts to this bill that call into question their commitment to both American farmers and American consumers who rely on adequate funding for these programs. Those cuts included important agricultural construction projects in California, including improvements to the Agricultural Research Service's Western Regional Research Center at Albany and construction of the Western Human Nutrition Laboratory at Davis. These projects are supported by the Department of Agriculture, they were in the President's budget request, and there was no opposition to including the necessary construction funds prior to today. I am very disappointed that the Republican leadership has chosen to pull the rug out from under these vital facilities. H.R. 1906, as reported by the Appropriations Committee, was not a perfect bill, but I believe Chairman Joe Skeen and Ranking Member Marcy Kaptur and their subcommittee members did a commendable job under tough budget constraints to fund the many deserving programs in this bill. The last-minute amendment offered by Rep. Bill Young to appease the right wing of his party works against that spirit of bipartisanship. This bill's scope, the so-called ``agriculture'' appropriations bill, is sweeping, from agriculture research, rural development and land conservation programs to food safety and operations of the Food and Drug Administration. Administration of our farm programs and marketing of our agricultural commodities is also included, yet the greatest share of the funding goes for nutrition programs, including food stamps, school breakfast and lunch, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children or WIC. I'm particularly grateful to the committee for adding funding within the extension activities of the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service for an after-school program in Los Angeles. Our 4-H after school activity program is operating at 21 sites, and over 4,000 kids are participating in educational field trips, getting homework assistance and receiving other types of mentoring. This program is a wonderful antidote to the drug and gang activity to which many of the kids in my district are susceptible. I very much appreciate this one-time infusion of funding so we can sustain the program and establish a long-term partnership between the government and businesses in our community. I am also grateful that the bill contains an increase of $5 million for farm labor housing in the Rural Cooperative Service and $9 million for rural housing assistance grants, which can also be used for non- profit organizations of farm workers. Migrant and seasonal farmworkers are some of the nation's most poorly housed populations. The last documented national study indicated a shortage of some 800,000 units of affordable housing for farmworkers. However, farmworker households are some of the poorest, yet least assisted households in the nation. So, the need for housing is great, and the committee has responded, within its overall budget constraints, to make some needed progress in this area. The nutrition programs in this bill benefit many of my constituents and people of all ages across the United States. However, I share the concern that has been expressed about adequate funding for the WIC program. Prior studies have demonstrated that for every $1 spent on the WIC program, up to $3 is saved in costs to Medicaid and other federal programs. That easily makes WIC one of the most cost-effective programs administered by the federal government. Although the committee increased funding by $81 million over last year, the amount provided is $100 million less than the President's budget request. WIC serves 1.2 million Californians, and we are making enormous strides in using the funds to serve all the mothers and children in need. On May 24, the California Department of Health Services lowered the maximum price it would pay for milk, eggs, cheese, cereal, juice and other foods in the WIC market basket in order to avoid having to cut 25,000 poor mothers and children from its roster. While other states may easily serve their WIC recipients with the funds distributed to them, California must use its funding shrewdly in order to serve all those in need. The Effective Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) of the Extension Service also plays an important role in working with WIC mothers and others to help them build positive lifelong nutrition habits and skill. I urge the chairman and the committee to reassess the WIC funding level during its conference with the Senate in order to ensure that no qualified women and children miss out on the benefits of this program, which contribute to a healthy America. California is the largest agricultural producing state in the nation, and I am phased that the committee has recommended funding for other programs of benefit to our farmers. Unlike many producers in the Midwest who have long benefited from agriculture price support programs, many of our California producers have been engaged in market- oriented agriculture for many years. That's why the Market Access Program (MAP) is so important to our cooperatives, small farmers and other producers who are making aggressive efforts to expand markets overseas. I'm pleased that the committee has funded MAP at its full authorized level. In addition, agricultural research into the special problems that affect California commodities takes on added importance to our producers. Research into integrated pest management and into alternatives to methyl bromide are just some of the vital research projects under way at the University of California, and funding for the Agricultural Research Service, for cooperative federal-state research, for competitive research grants, and for special research grants are all important parts of this bill. There are many other programs in the bill that I could comment on, including the food safety program and the youth anti-tobacco initiative in the Food and Drug Administration. These are areas where we would all like to do more if possible, but the committee originally reported a responsible bill based on its budget allocation. Now these partisan floor shenanigans call into question our ability to improve funding for these programs if opportunities present themselves later in the appropriations endgame. In short, I would like to support this bill and the programs of benefit to my constituents and the people of California and the nation. However, I cannot in good conscience vote for final passage because the Republican majority has made a decision to depart from the usual bipartisan manner in which we consider this bill, in pursuit of their own political purposes. I hope that the House-Senate conference committee will make the needed improvements in this bill that will draw the customary widespread, bipartisan support before we send the final version to the President late in this fiscal year.

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, today I will reluctantly vote in favor of the Republican ``lock box'' proposal. I do so with reluctance because Democrats were not allowed to offer a far better alternative which would have truly extended the life of both Social Security and Medicare. I am disappointed that, for all their rhetoric, the Republican leadership cannot come up with a real Social Security reform proposal that truly protects and extends the life of our nation's retirement security program. H.R. 1259 fits into a pattern of Republican-controlled congresses to pass harmless legislation that make political points instead of taking the tough steps necessary to solve our nation's problems. The bill in front of us was not even considered by the committees that have jurisdiction over Social Security. We need real action on Social Security and Medicare, not just procedural bills that do not address the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that 44 million people currently receive Social Security benefits, and Social Security has kept millions of our seniors out of poverty. Without Social Security, a staggering 42% of our seniors would be in poverty. But now due to the pending retirement of the baby boom generation and the very positive fact that people are living longer today, we need to take steps to provide for the long-term health of Social Security. Democrats are very clear about this--we want to reserve the budget surplus for the long-term health of both Social Security and Medicare. We have a basic difference of opinion with Republicans, who would like to use a significant percentage of the budget surplus for tax cuts which would benefit the richest Americans at a time when the economy is performing superbly. So while the bill today does no harm, neither does it do any good. Let's take the politics out of this debate about Social Security, roll up our sleeves, and get down to work on realistic and lasting reforms that will extend the life of Social Security and Medicare for generations to come.