Hilda Solis

Ms. SOLIS

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, April 25, 2005, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus organized a Social Security and Latinos Forum to address the Bush Administration's disturbing proposal to privatize Social Security. This forum was very important because as Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus' Health Task Force and Democratic Chair of the Women's Caucus, I believe we must discuss the impact of the proposed privatization to our Latino community. The President's privatization plan will not help Latino families and will especially hurt Latinas in the future. Right now, Social Security gives people with lower earnings a greater return on what they pay into Social Security. Latinas will be especially hurt by the Bush Administration's plan because they are more likely to be employed in lower-wage jobs and have fewer years in the workforce. Latinas are already facing disproportionate pay gaps--they earn only 55 cents for every dollar that men earn, which is much less than national wage gap which averages 76 cents per dollar earned by a man. As a result, Latinas are less likely to have pensions or retirement savings to supplement their Social Security checks and money to invest in risky private accounts. Let's look at the facts: About 46 percent of older Latinas depend entirely on Social Security in retirement; only 33 percent of Latinas have retirement income from savings or assets; and 60 percent of Latinas over the age of 65 would live in poverty without Social Security. If the President's plan to privatize Social Security moves forward, young Latinas in their 20s and 30s will see their benefits cut by at least 30 percent. I am also very worried about how Latina mothers will be affected by the privatization plan. Latina moms rely heavily on their Social Security monthly benefits to provide for their families, especially if their husbands become injured or die. Latinos have higher rates of disability, and, consequently, are more likely to receive benefits from the Social Security Disability Insurance Program. The work injury rate for Latinos in 2000 was 16.7 percent compared to 11 percent overall. In 2003, the rate of fatalities for Latino workers was 13 percent higher than the rate for all workers. Many Latinas rely on disability and survivor checks to keep their families fed and clothed. Congress needs to start talking about real solutions for Social Security that will help hardworking Latino families. We have and will continue to save, strengthen, and secure Social Security for our community. Once again, I thank the Congressional Hispanic Caucus for organizing on the Social Security and Latinos Forum.

Ms. SOLIS

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our ranking member on the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time for the opportunity to speak. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the fiscally irresponsible Republican budget that is being presented here today. The Republican- passed budget claims to cut the deficit in half within 5 years, but instead will actually provide for a $150 billion worse deficit over 5 years. And I hope that the American public is paying attention and will understand that the Bush administration and the Republican majority refuse to finance priorities that matter most to Americans, like jobs, cleaning the environment, and guaranteeing good health care. The Republican budget will severely damage our Nation's health care system by cutting Medicaid by $10 billion. Medicaid is so important in my district. It helps to provide coverage for millions of low-income and elderly and disabled Americans. Medicaid cuts would shut the neediest individuals out of the public health insurance system and severely impact Latinos across the country. Latinos have the highest uninsured rates. One out of every three Hispanics is without health insurance. Latinos are already marginalized from our Nation's safety net programs because they have been severely cut back. Despite this national tragedy, the proposed Republican budget would cut billions from Medicaid while doing nothing, or minimally nothing, to help health care to become more affordable for Americans. Medicaid cuts will shift costs to the States, and beneficiaries or health care providers, many of the doctors that serve in my district, will not receive sufficient funds to provide services to the very needy. And I have heard this over and over and over again, and we must stop the hemorrhaging. States will be forced to reduce Medicaid coverage or benefits, increasing the number of low-income Americans, not only Latinos but African Americans, who are uninsured and underinsured. We must protect Medicaid and maintain the current Federal commitment to the public health insurance system. The low-income families in my district and throughout the country need to know that these programs can be there so that they can depend on them.

Ms. SOLIS

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This bill especially concerns me because it endangers the lives of young women who are seeking abortion services in emergency circumstances, such as rape and incest. The travel restrictions in this bill make it a Federal crime for any person other than a parent to assist a minor across State lines to access abortion services. Unfortunately, this is not inclusive of young women who seek help from a grandparent or another family member when the relationship with the parent is either nonexistent or unhealthy. This places a burden on young women who are unable to seek help from a parent. Plus, it is important to realize that often women must travel across State lines because they do not have reproductive health providers close by. The notification requirements also place a burden on doctors. Under this bill, it would be illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion without first notifying a parent. This will not only deter doctors from performing such services but also endanger the life of a young woman who may not be able to consult with a parent. This could create a very dangerous situation at home. The bill does not provide exemptions for critical and dangerous health situations which endanger a woman's life. The bill endangers the life of young women, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against the bill.

Ms. SOLIS

Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to announce the adoption of the Democratic principles that will be unveiled today that will seek to eliminate racial and ethnic health care disparities. The community that I represent is multicultural. Sixty percent of the residents are Latino, 20 percent are Asian Pacific Islander, and 40 percent of those residents in my district were born outside of the United States, and many of them cannot afford to pay for medical coverage. Unfortunately, our health care system is not meeting the needs of all these people, who in most cases are children. For racial and ethnic minorities, as for most all communities, the lack of health insurance is a major barrier in quality health care. In our Nation, there are over 43.3 million people who do not have any form of health care coverage. A staggering 1 in 3 Latinos in this country are uninsured. Actively challenging the racial and ethnic inequalities affecting all branches of our health care system is key to helping the Latino community achieve better health care. These Democratic principles address the many health disparities plaguing our communities. I strongly support these principles and stand united with my colleagues to end racial and ethnic health disparity. We must make this a national priority for our country.

Ms. SOLIS

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 35th anniversary of Earth Day. I have seen first hand the damage that environmental injustices bring to poor and underserved communities. Growing up in Los Angeles County, my community was plagued by bad air and industrial wasteland. In Los Angeles, 60 percent of the facilities that produce the most toxic waste are located in minority and low-income communities. My predominantly Latino district is spoiled by dozens of abandoned gas stations with leaking fuel tanks, four Superfund sites, 17 gravel pits, and one of the country's most polluted watersheds. The environmental issues I focus on all have one thing in common-- they directly affect our health. As a public servant, one of my goals is to make sure that our environment is protected, restored, and most importantly, safe for our families, wherever they live. Since he first took office in 2001, President Bush's policies have hurt our health, worsened our air quality, and destroyed the quality of our drinking water. Worse, President Bush refuses to make polluters pay for the cleanup of these sites at all, and the cleanups that are occurring are being paid for by the taxpayers. The administration's misguided policies, like Clear Skies, will worsen our air quality, increasing asthma, bronchitis and lost days at work across the country. This policy will do nothing to help and everything to harm the over 70 percent of all Latinos and African Americans who live in counties that violate federal air pollution standards. As a result, the 35,000 cases of asthma in the San Gabriel Valley will increase, and there will be 14,000 more lost days of work and 175 more cases of bronchitis in Los Angeles County. As we observe Earth Day 2005, it is critical that we continue to fight to make sure future generations are healthy, their air quality is safe and they have a secure supply of drinking water.

Ms. SOLIS

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly support my colleague, Ms. Capps', amendment to eliminate the MTBE safe harbor liability shield. This provision is an unfunded mandate on our communities and water providers who will be left holding the tab while the polluters cash in. Our communities and those organizations representing them oppose this language. These include: The U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Towns and Townships, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the American Water Works Association, the Association of California Water Agencies, the Western Coalition of Arid States, the American Public Works Association, and the National Water Resources Association. Supporters of this language, like the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, claim that 96 percent of cleanups are paid for by the responsible parties, insurance companies, or state cleanup funds, and that future cleanup funds will be adequately paid for. Similarly, supporters also believe that the funding this bill authorizes through the leaking underground storage tank trust fund will be sufficient to pay for cleanups. What supporters are ignoring is that the existing authorizing program for regular cleanups, not intended solely for MTBE cleanups, is severely underfunded and State programs are broke. Approximately 136,000 leaks are not being addressed yet, and EPA anticipates that over the next decade there will be between 6,000 and 12,000 new leaks each year. EPA currently fails to meet its program goal of cleaning up 21,000 sites per year. In 2003, the EPA only cleaned up 18,000 sites--3,000 sites short of its goal. In 2004, only 14,235 sites were cleaned up-- 7,000 sites short of EPA's goal. Despite the need for cleanup funds and EPA's inability to meets its cleanup goal, this administration has cut funding for cleanups by 8 percent, from $72 million in fiscal year 2001 to $69.4 million in the fiscal year 2005 omnibus. Cleanups are not an administration priority. Cleanups are not the appropriators' priority. Supporters can talk all day long about authorizing ``sufficient'' funds but it means nothing. The reality is that this is an unfunded mandate and our cities, communities and water providers will be left holding the bag. An unfunded mandate on states which are paid for by taxpayers and largely broke. In Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin the funds are serviced exclusively with fuel taxes. Programs in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Vermont are funded predominantly by fuel taxes. In fact, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia don't have cleanup funds. More than 12 States have funds with more claims than money. The entire Texas financial assurance fund will sunset on September 1, 2006. Tennessee's fund is in the process of going broke; Michigan needs an estimated $1.7 billion to cleanup orphan sites. If you are from Florida, your state stopped accepting claims years ago. Arizona, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska and Vermont will all have stopped accepting claims by 2010, and Kansas and North Dakota, will not accept claims after 2014. The bottom line is that, unlike supporters of the safe harbor provision would like to believe, the Federal Government is not funding the cleanups and the State programs cannot afford to fund the cleanups. Authorizing money in this bill will not solve that problem. Colleagues, the Federal Government is not paying for cleanups and language amending the LUST program--supported by Republicans--will do nothing to help, in fact, it will further hinder the EPA's ability to clean up these sites and States' ability to prevent contamination. This leaves taxpayers footing the bill instead of manufacturers. When taxpayers realize their money is being spent cleaning up the mess of corporate polluters who got rich off voluntarily using MTBE, when they realize that the Federal Government transferred a HUGE unfunded mandate onto them, those doing the dirty work, those supporting this provision, will be responsible. The San Gabriel Valley Tribune said it best when they said ``polluters should foot the bill.'' I urge my colleagues to support efforts to strip this unfunded mandate from the energy bill.

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I also rise to support the Capps amendment to eliminate MTBE, the safe harbor liability. The provision, as many of my colleagues know, is an unfunded mandate on our communities and water providers. In fact, I will submit for the Record a list of 10 of those major organizations in opposition to the MTBE liability waiver. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, and the National Association of Towns and Townships are all opposed to shielding these folks. In addition to that, I would like to tell my colleagues that right now as it stands, we are not paying for sufficient cleanup as it is of underground storage tanks where we know MTBE is leaking. We are doing a foul job on behalf of the American public. Approximately 136,000 leaks are not being addressed right now, and EPA anticipates that over the next decade anywhere from 6,000 to 12,000 new leaks will occur each year. Who is going to get caught with the tab to clean that up? Guess who? Our local townships, our local municipalities, our States, and the public. Despite the need to clean up funds through EPA, we know that this is a wrong decision. We need to work this out. We need to make sure that we support the Capps amendment and that we do everything we can to educate the public of the harmful effects of MTBE, because in the State of California, we are plagued with having to clean up this water. We have higher standards there. We should be looking at models, models from other States. Just as the Republicans used to agree that local control was a primary factor in their agenda back in the 1990s, now they are saying it does not cut it anymore. Our colleagues have to be clear. They have to understand that there is something very wrong with this system and that the public is crying out for elected officials like ourselves to say, this must stop. Do not hold the taxpayers liable for the corporations that are actually polluting our water.

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Hastings amendment. California law, back in 1996, we passed this particular amendment, and I carried that bill. It was one of the first in this country. Now there are 29 States that are enforcing this. Under the energy bill, this provision is necessary because they will be able to put refineries, be able to go onto Native Americans lands, they will be able to go into communities of color, in low-income communities like mine that are underserved right now, that have many, many egregious projects that are there that are polluting our waters, and making our life, I think, a health hazard. This is the wrong direction to go in with the energy bill. We need to support this amendment for environmental justice when right now, under the Bush administration, 33 percent of EJ moneys have been cut.

Ms. SOLIS

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) to allow him to enter his statement into the Record. (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today I rise to offer my amendment to strike the refinery revitalization provisions in H.R. 6. The refinery revitalization provisions are the biggest environmental and public health injustices that the Congress and Bush administration can perpetrate on the American people. The bill would strip our States and communities and local air boards and other Federal agencies of existing authorities and give these authorities to the Department of Energy. The energy czar is then required to establish refinery revitalization zones in more than 1,200 counties and, in each instance, can veto our States and communities. This language is crafted on false premises. In two separate letters in the summer and fall of 2004, the EPA stated that it was not aware of any pending permits under the public health laws we are undermining. According to the 2005 Energy Information Administration's annual energy outlook, refining capacity is expected to grow through 2025 under existing laws. The refinery revitalization provisions are opposed by a wide variety of groups. The following are 15 national entities representing public entities, health care entities and civil rights organizations: The National Association of Counties, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Environmental Council of States, the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators, the Association of Local Pollution Control Officials, the South Coast Air Quality Management District in California, all major environmental and public health groups including the League of Conservation Voters, the National Hispanic Environmental Council, the National Council of La Raza, and the League of United Latin American Citizens. Most of the neighborhoods in refinery communities are low-income minority communities with the least availability to defend themselves from corporate pollution, and most are vulnerable to environmental and public health problems, yet are targets in this very language. More than 70 percent of Latinos and African Americans live in counties with dirty air. Latino children have asthma at a much higher rate than non-Latino children, and death rates from asthma among African Americans are 2.5 time higher than for whites. Yet this language would put the Department of Energy in charge of protecting our health. Perhaps before we harm the health of most underserved populations, before we strip States and communities of their rights to protect themselves, and before we turn a good part of this Nation into a refinery revitalization zone, perhaps we should have a real dialogue, that would have tremendous impacts in our communities, that would truly represent those concerns and voices we represent. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to protect our communities and support the amendment to strike this egregious language. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time is remaining.

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

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

Ms. SOLIS

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in opposition to the energy bill. The bill limits States' rights to protect their water supplies and protect their air quality, risks the public health of our working families, and leaves our States to pick up the tab for contamination. First, the bill puts important groundwater supplies at risk by allowing diesel fuel and other contaminants to be injected into the ground with no oversight by EPA. Second, supporters of the bill refuse to take steps to prevent leaks into the groundwater from underground storage tanks by rejecting attempts to require new replacement storage tanks near drinking water wells or sensitive areas to be secondarily contained. Third, the bill would make States weaken programs to prevent leaks during fuel delivery or risk losing Federal cleanup funds. Finally, the language unnecessarily targets poor and underserved communities for the unrestricted siting of new refineries. Together, all these actions are environmental and public health injustices. While the bill benefits corporate America, it leaves communities like mine with more contaminated groundwater, increases the cost of cleanup borne by taxpayers and water providers, and increases the risks to public health for all Americans.

Ms. SOLIS

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Equal Pay Day. On this day, thousands of advocates across the country will participate in events to bring attention to the continued gender wage gap. The Equal Pay Act, enacted in 1963, established pay equity for women in the United States. Nonetheless, 40 years after the enactment, women are still paid less than men--despite similar education, skills and experience. In fact, women still only earn 76 cents to each dollar paid to their male counterparts. Although we have made progress since 1963, women have not yet achieved pay equity. Women, particularly single mothers, continue to face financial burdens, including the cost of rent, groceries and utilities. Compounding this situation is the reality that the wage gap inevitably leaves women with less money for retirement, smaller pensions and will also disproportionately depend on social security. While working women in California are farther along the road to reaching equal pay in comparison to other states, the gap still exists. In 2000, women in California earned 82 cents as much per hour as men. Regrettably, at this current rate, women in California will not have pay equity until 2044. Women of color are at an even higher disadvantage than non-minority women. Latinas earn merely 53 cents and African American women earn 65 cents for every dollar that men earn. We must recognize workplace discrimination and barriers faced by women of color across the country. The wage gap between men and women is unacceptable. That is why I strongly support the ``Paycheck Fairness Act,'' introduced by Representative DeLauro. This bill will take the necessary steps to eliminate gender-based wage discrimination and ensure that women will finally earn what men earn for doing the same job. I urge Congress to pass this bill and end wage discrimination for all women.

Ms. SOLIS

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the unnecessary refinery revitalization provisions in the energy bill. The energy bill would allow unrestricted sitings of refineries in low-income and underrepresented minority communities and strips States and local municipalities of their right to protect public health. Most refinery communities are found in low-income minority areas, and they do not have the political power to protect themselves and their families. These communities have the least ability to defend themselves from corporate pollution and are the most vulnerable to environmental and public health problems. Yet they are the very targets in this language. I believe the bill will only worsen the present and future environmental justice problems afflicting Latinos, African Americans, and Native Americans. Before we harm the health of the most underserved populations, strip States and communities of their right to protect themselves, we should have a real dialogue about the far reaching impacts of this language in our communities. Today I am asking the Committee on Rules to allow me to offer an amendment to strike this language during floor debate on the energy bill. I urge my colleagues to protect the public health and States' rights and support my amendment to strike the refinery revitalization provisions.

Ms. SOLIS

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 107 on motion to recommit with instructions (S. 256) I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 256, legislation that will make it harder for individuals to eliminate their debts after liquidating most of their assets by filing bankruptcy. Thousands of women and their children are affected by the bankruptcy system each year. This bill will only inflict additional hardship on over a million economically vulnerable women and their families. In fact, women are the fastest growing group to file for bankruptcy. More than 1 million women will find themselves in bankruptcy court this year, outnumbering men by about 150,000. Women who lose a job, have a medical emergency, or go through divorce make up more than 90 percent of the women who file for bankruptcy. This legislation's means test provision would require even the poorest filers--struggling single mothers, elderly women who are victims of scam artists--to meet complicated filing requirements to access the bankruptcy system. In addition, the bill would make it much harder for women to collect child support payments from men who file for bankruptcy because the bill gives credit card companies, finance companies, auto lenders and other commercial creditors rights to a greater share of the debtor's income during and after bankruptcy. This bill pulls the rug out from under economically vulnerable women and children. It increases the rights of creditors while making it harder for single parents and others facing financial crises. This harsh bankruptcy reform legislation will not help those families that are struggling to get by. This bill will do nothing to reduce the number of bankruptcy filings or address the problem of record-high consumer debt. It is a gift to the credit card and banking industries; but one that will be paid for by those least able to afford it. Instead of giving a handout to credit card companies, we should ensure that Americans losing their jobs or struggling with medical debt have a second chance for economic security. That is what our bankruptcy laws are intended to provide. This bill is terrible for consumers, working families and women, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 108 on final passage (S. 256) I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Ms. SOLIS

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 106, on motion to table the resolution, H. Res. 215, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Ms. SOLIS

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 103 on motion to adjourn I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. SOLIS

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 104 on H. Res. 211, ordering the previous question, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``nay''.

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 105, on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 211, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``no.''