Ellen Tauscher

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment, and request the time in opposition.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). (Mr. Shuster asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Roukema amendment. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) would recklessly end an important program that has successfully increased the participation of minority-owned businesses in the Federal-aid highway and transit programs. Let us be clear, the DBE program does not involve set-asides, preferences, or quotas. Indeed, the DBE program requires States to establish their own voluntary DBE goals and make a good-faith effort to achieve these goals. The DBE goals can be waived if there are not sufficient minority contractors available to meet the targets. In addition, the Department of Transportation has never punished a State for failing to meet its voluntary goals. The Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program ensures that small businesses that are owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals will have a fair opportunity to compete for federally-funded highway and transit contracts. Prior to enactment of the DBE program in 1982, minority-owned businesses participated in only about 2 percent of all contracts in the Federal-aid highway program. Following enactment of DBE, minority participation has risen to roughly 9 percent of all contracts. Since 1987, women-owned businesses have also benefited greatly from the DBE program. According to Federal Highway Administration figures, contracts to women-owned businesses have increased from 2.6 percent in fiscal year 1986 to 6.7 percent in fiscal year 1996. Nevertheless, while women own one-third of all construction firms, they still only get 19 percent of business receipts. The Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program has been instrumental in promoting equal opportunity for all citizens to fully participate in our national economy. Now is not the time to turn back this effort. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Absolutely. Which makes no sense whatsoever.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. If I might also add that I do believe that the people I represent want to see a less complicated tax system, want to see it fairer. And I do, too. And they also want to see IRS reformed, which we passed in the House. It has not yet been taken up in the Senate, very important IRS reforms, changing the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS in Tax Court, very significant changes that need to be moving quickly. One of the things I am concerned about is that we have passed IRS reform in the House, it has not been taken up yet in the Senate, and that needs to happen, so that we can--we need to be calling on the majority in the Senate to be bringing that up, because while we talk about the proposals that do not make sense for middle-class families and working people, we do know that there needs to be change and that there needs to be positive things. It is a question of where our values are, who it is that we believe needs to see tax cuts and tax reform. And my vote goes with small business people, family-owned farms, middle-class families working hard to make ends meet. Those are the folks who have not seen the same wage gains and have felt the burden, too much of the burden, on taxes. And so those are the folks I want to see helped, not the kinds of proposals that have been submitted on the other side of the aisle that will just increase their taxes.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Well, they certainly will feel that even more under this particular proposal, and right at a time when we have just passed a series of tax cuts, $95 billion in tax cuts. We have been able to focus more cuts on education. The ability for people to be able to go to school, all of those things would be gone. In Michigan when I was a State senator, I sponsored the State's largest property tax cut. I am not interested in seeing this shift back and seeing property taxes go back up in the State of Michigan or in any State. And so we are talking about those taxes that the average person pays. It is very easy for a wealthy individual to pick and choose what extra things they are going to buy, but the average person who is buying the house, sending the kids to school, needing to buy the clothes, the food, the car and so on, most of our income goes back out again in purchasing things, and that is why we see that shift that has been talked about onto middle-income and lower-income people, because we do not have as much discretionary income with which to decide whether or not to purchase items. Most of what we bring in, we are turning around and we are purchasing something with it.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. And on top of that. I would just indicate that one of the things we have heard over and over again from the other side of the aisle is that we are going to eliminate the IRS under this proposal. We will eliminate the IRS as we know it. In the bill it transfers all the powers of the IRS to a new Sales Tax Bureau. So the name is gone, but the powers are still there. So then we have to talk about reforming a sales tax bill. I mean what we need to be doing is talking about ways to reform the system for taxpayers, not just playing around with the name, and that is what this does. It changes the name, and then it drops down and requires every businessperson now and every person that has never collected sales tax, like a doctor, like attorneys, accountants, anyone in any kind of business on their own that is providing service, a plumber, electrician, and so on, they now become a tax collector and have to report that to the government. So this is certainly anti-small business.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. And I would add, I know that the small business community is extremely concerned about that issue. Today we have been debating various issues related to small business, paperwork reduction, and so on, but the reality is that every small business, professional or retailer or manufacturer, will now become a tax collector for that sales tax. And on top of that, the National Retail Federation, and I would quote, based on the last session's bill, this bill was put in last session, it has been put in in the same form this session. So last session when this bill was in front of us, in front of the Congress, the National Retail Federation said between 1990 and 1994 the retail industry created 708,000 new jobs. A study by Nathan Associates shows that a national sales tax would destroy 200,000 retail jobs over a similar period. Adding these jobs lost with the 708,000 that will not be created, we could result in a net impact of almost 1 million fewer jobs. This is the National Retail Federation talking about small business loss because there will be fewer people buying at Christmastime. What are the headlines we always read? What are the retail sales, the concern of retailers that people be purchasing? This cuts down on purchasing, it eliminates jobs. So this is a job killer on top of everything else.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. The other part that I might add that also adds on top of that, my city of Lansing will pay, for instance, 30 percent more for a police car. But this proposal also counts the wages of public employees as taxable, as value in terms of the sales tax. So the police officer in that car will pay 30 percent more on top of their wages. Either the local unit will pay it, or they will have a new income tax essentially on the wage of that police officer, that firefighter, that school teacher, because it taxes wages of government employees. So we are going to see the taxes go up for people who serve us in local communities at the same time local units will have to pay 30 percent more to provide the service.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. It is really crazy. Another thing that we found today in analyzing this bill is that it also eliminates the funding for the highway trust fund. Now, this is particularly crazy, because we are in the process right now of passing a very important bill, one that we fought for hard in Michigan to be able to increase our fair share. We have not in Michigan over the years received our fair share, and we worked very hard to do that. But in the middle of this, it eliminates a wide variety of excise taxes and trust fund taxes, one being the highway trust fund. So in so many ways, this particular bill makes no sense. It eliminates those taxes, it raises taxes on seniors, middle-income people. I do not know where we get the dollars then for the highway trust fund; I think that is an important question to ask.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. That is correct.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding achievements of the REACH project, a nationally acclaimed drug abuse prevention and treatment program headquartered in the City of Antioch in the 10th Congressional District of California. Founded in 1970, REACH stands for Rehabilitation Education Awareness for Community Humanitarianism. The REACH project brings law enforcement, government, business, and schools together to educate the community about the dangers of drug abuse. REACH also offers a wide range of effective youth and family counseling programs. An example of this is the Youth Intervention Diversion Program, a collaborative counseling program with the Antioch Police Department which keeps first-time juvenile offenders out of the criminal justice system. REACH Executive Director Shirley Marchetti has been an integral part of the REACH project and the main reason the project has become what it is today. Her outstanding efforts have helped public service providers work together to reduce drug abuse and crime in my community. The staff of the REACH project and Shirley Marchetti are to be commended for their hard work and dedication to strengthening our community.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, in honor of Women's History Month, I would like to take a moment to draw our attention to the issue of child care. There is general agreement in America that two of our most precious values are family and work. During the course of the last century, we have seen many changes in the way that we work and raise our families. One hundred years ago the vast majority of Americans were doing some kind of home-based work, such as working on a family farm. In those earlier years, extended family members could be counted on to help parents provide care for their children. But as we have become an increasingly mobile and quickly growing society, many of those traditional methods of child care are no longer an option. While most people would agree that it is preferable for a parent to stay home with his or her child, we all have to realize that most families simply do not have that option any longer. Today in America working families face a constant challenge of how to balance family and work. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to child care. But there are things as a Nation we can do at a Federal, state, and a community level to improve and enhance the quality of the care our children receive. We must empower parents with a variety of options, opportunities, and information and allow them to make their choices about which solution best suits their own family's needs. In the parts of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in California that I represent, roughly 60 percent of the women work outside of home, which requires most parents to search for quality child care. Nationwide only 7 percent of American families fit the old traditional model of a working dad and a stay-at-home mom, and 62 percent of the women in the entire American work force are working mothers. Finding the right information about child care can be difficult for many of these working families. In my district, we have wonderful groups, such as the Contra Costa Child Care Council, which helps parents find quality child care that is right for them. But, in general, getting information about the differences between nannies, au pairs, in-house care, day-care centers, work site centers, and babysitters can be daunting, if not impossible, and it is a task that overburdens many parents. There are a number of legislative options being offered to help families who have difficulty in finding and affording good child care. What we must remember is that no one single approach is better than another. Our goal must be to help parents find and afford the type of care that best suits their lifestyle and needs. For example, one family may benefit from a tax credit, while another family may want to use after-school care. We must work together to offer multiple solutions so that parents can choose for themselves. I strongly believe that the final child care package must be one that empowers parents and encourages public-private partnerships without creating another large bureaucracy. While we draw attention to child care during Women's History Month, we must also realize that child care is not just a women's issue; it is a family issue and in a sense a community issue. Children are our most precious asset; and from the very beginning, we must take the right steps to ensure that they are properly nurtured and cared for during the times we are with them and during the times we are unable to be with them. Our job now is to develop a child-care initiative that provides working families with the tools necessary to ensure quality and affordable care for every child in America that needs it.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Women's History Month and in particular to pay special recognition to the millions of women business owners in the United States today. I think that it is particularly significant and important that we honor the nearly 8 million women-owned businesses that exist in the United States, because the right of a woman to legally own or run a business has been won only very recently in the course of United States history. Women were historically denied the right to legally run a business or hold assets in their name, which prevented them from ever achieving financial self-sufficiency. This is not to say that women did not run businesses or make financial decisions every day. They not only ran shops and mercantiles, but farms and other businesses on a regular basis. But this was done in the name of a husband, a father, a brother, or a son. The economic contributions women have made to this country have been tremendous, but they remain largely unrecognized. We need to acknowledge this not only during Women's History Month but every month. As a former businesswoman, I know how difficult it is to break into business, period, and how particularly difficult it is if you are a woman. Every business needs capital to succeed. In our business- friendly environment, one where we value hard work and entrepreneurship, one would think that all talented, educated individuals would have access to capital. Despite the tremendous advances women have made in every field, access to capital is still a significant problem for many women. There are still banks that deny business loans to qualified women entrepreneurs. The Congressional Caucus for Women's issues last year heard testimony from a number of businesswomen owners who stated that they were forced to use credit cards to finance their first business ventures. But despite the barriers that women business owners have had to face, they have continually proven themselves to be a success. The nearly 8 million women-owned firms in the United States provide jobs for 15.5 million people and generate nearly $1.4 trillion in sales. The number of women-owned companies increased at twice the rate of male-owned businesses from 1987 to 1992. Businesses owned by women are extremely stable. For example, nearly three-quarters of the commercially women-owned firms that existed in 1991 are still successfully operating today. However, in comparison, only two-thirds of all commercially active firms in 1999 are successfully operating today. I am especially proud of the fact that my home State of California leads the country in the number of women-owned business firms. There are nearly 1.1 million women-owned businesses in California, which employ approximately 2.3 million people and generate $314 million in sales. Women-owned businesses make a difference in the economic health of not only the State of California but the entire United States. In return, we must do more for them. Encouraging women to start their own businesses, for example, is an excellent way to move them off the welfare rolls. Microcredit programs across the country provide low-income women with marketable skills; many of them are moving from welfare to work with small loans to start their own businesses. These women might set up something as small as a stall in a flea market or as challenging as a catering service. Whatever business they choose to start, the fact is that they are working to make themselves and their families self-sufficient. Women are twice as likely to start a business as men, and we must encourage that and ensure that a level playing field is available to women for access to capital and information. In 1995, as a small business owner, I was a delegate to the White House Conference on Small Business where many of these issues were discussed. Now, as a Member of Congress, I have not forgotten the issues that we discussed then and I believe that we need to bring them again to the forefront. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the many women who fought so hard for the right of women to achieve economic self- sufficiency. Let us carry on that tradition by honoring the millions of women business owners today and by supporting the millions of business owners we have to come.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to an inspiring act of citizenship by my constituents, Kenneth E. Behring and his family. A week ago, Mr. Behring traveled to Washington to give a gift to the Smithsonian Institution; at a time when we have grown accustomed to people coming to Washington to ask for favors. Mr. Behring and his family have donated $20 million to the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History to enable it to update its rotunda and its mammal hall to 21st century standards. The Behring gift also will enable the Smithsonian to set up traveling exhibitions in schools and other public places so that Americans who cannot visit Washington can experience a little bit of the Smithsonian in their hometown. As a young man in Wisconsin, Mr. Behring opened a modest used car business in what turned out to be the first step in achieving the American dream. Through hard work and creativity, first in the automobile business and later as a real estate developed, he achieved great wealth. Now, in his own words, he believed it is time to give back. Mr. Behring delights in telling of his experiences as a world traveler. He speaks eloquently of the natural beauty he has witnessed in the animal world, and of his desire to help the Smithsonian enable others--especially young people--to get at least a small sense of what he has seen. I believe his generous gift is a noble example that should serve as a model for all Americans with the means to do good. I am humbled by this generosity and hope that the rest of the House and the American people will take note of Mr. Behring's great deed.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this misguided rule and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against it. This rule offers us tricks and treats just in time for Halloween. The rule we are considering this morning provides a complicated procedure whereby two separate bills, one bipartisan on charter schools and one controversial on vouchers can be considered and passed separately before being joined together and sent to the Senate and thereafter to the President for his signature or veto. The first bill has never been considered, the bill on vouchers, by the authorizing committee. This is quite a trick. The other measure, H.R. 2616, deals with charter schools. It has received great support by a majority of Republicans and Democrats on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Charter schools are public schools that are created by communities to stimulate reform and provide an alternative to traditional public school systems. In short, charter schools are a real treat for parents and children alike. I strongly oppose vouchers and strongly support charter schools. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this misguided rule.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my heartfelt congratulations to my constituent and friend Juanita Haugen from Pleasanton for serving as the California School Board Association's president for the past year. We are extremely fortunate to have someone as dedicated as Juanita Haugen serving in the 10th Congressional District. I applaud her for her continuous efforts on behalf of children and their education in Pleasanton and in the State of California as a whole. Juanita Haugen has served as a school board member in Pleasanton for over 16 years. A member of the California School Board Association's delegate assembly since 1981, Juanita has sat on a number of the association's committees, including the Legislative Network, Federal Relations Network, Finance, Legal Alliance Steering, and Budget and Resolution. She has chaired the Small School Districts Task Force, the Role of the Board Leadership Committee, the Audit Committee and the Legislative Committee on Restructuring and Reform. Juanita is also past president of the California Suburban School Districts Association and has been a representative of the Association's board of directors since 1989. She has been the recipient of awards from many civil organizations in Pleansanton. Some of the organizations that have recognized her include the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, who presented her with the Excellence in Education Award, and the Soroptimist International of Pleasanton, who presented her with the Woman of Distinction Award. Though Juanita is leaving her post as president of the California School Board Association, I take great comfort in knowing that she will continue to serve on the Pleasanton School Board. She is an incredible resource, and you can certainly expect me to continue to take advantage of her knowledge. Let me again offer my warmest congratulations to Juanita for her efforts on behalf of the students of California's public schools and the constituents of the 10th Congressional District.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a very special veteran in my district, Frieda Hardin. On October 18, Yeoman Hardin, a resident of Livermore's veterans center, was one of six featured speakers and one of two female World War I veterans in attendance at the dedication of the new Women in Military Service for America Memorial in Washington, DC. At 101 years of age, Frieda Hardin may be the nation's oldest living female veteran. She enlisted with the Navy in 1918 at the age of 22, just 2 days after she learned the Navy was accepting women. During the war, she was assigned to Portsmouth, VA, and the Norfolk Navy Yard where she was a Yeoman Third Class working as a clerk checking document receipts in the freight office. At that time there was not yet military housing for women so she lived in a boarding house in town. After the war ended, Yeoman Hardin completed her 2 years of service with the Navy in Bremerton, WA. She went on to raise four children and has since been involved with many veterans' events. Frieda Hardin is truly a pioneer. At the time she joined the Navy, women were not yet allowed to vote. She did not let that deter her. She wanted, as she puts it, ``to do something more, something bigger and better'' for herself and her country. She encourages women in the military to ``carry on!'' and believes they are doing a wonderful job. She is proud to have been able to serve her country and has great admiration for those who do so today. Her speaking role at the dedication of the Women in Military Service for America Memorial is an honor well deserved. She is a role model for women veterans everywhere. I would like to thank Yeoman Hardin for her dignity, courage, and service to our country.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 20th Anniversary of Battered Women's Alternative, a non-profit agency in Contra Costa County, California, that serves battered women and their families. Founded in 1977, Battered Women's Alternative is a leader, providing technical assistance and resources to many other programs across the country. As we are all too aware, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages 15 and 44 in the United States. More women are injured as a result of domestic violence than are injured in car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined. Women of all cultures, races, occupations, income levels, and ages are battered by husbands, boyfriends, and partners. Batterers are not restricted to low-income or unemployed men. Approximately one-third of the men who undergo counseling for battering are professional men who are well-respected in their jobs and their communities. These include doctors, psychologists, lawyers, ministers, and business executives. Domestic violence also affects children. Half the children who live in violent homes experience some form of physical abuse. Unfortunately, one-third of boys who grow up in violent homes become batterers themselves, simply perpetuating the cycle. For 20 years, Battered Women's Alternative has provided a safe haven for those women who have taken the critical first step and escaped from their homes. Battered Women's Alternative serves more than 15,500 women annually through its 24-hour crisis line, emergency shelter, safe homes, traditional housing, legal advocacy, counseling, employment assistance and placement programs. Battered Women's Alternative also conducts extensive educational programs in the hopes of preventing future instances of domestic violence, many of which are targeted toward abusive men as well as younger children. Battered Women's Alternative is the largest domestic violence agency in the Bay Area and is the only agency which serves my constituents in the 10th District. The cities and County of Contra Costa formerly recognized the outstanding community service provided by Battered Women's Alternative on October 16, 1997. I ask that you join me in honoring this organization for their outstanding work and dedication in rebuilding the tarnished lives of the many women and children who are victims of domestic violence.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a very special occasion, the marriage today of Kevin McCarthy of Long Island and Leslie Nolan. Many of my colleagues know the tragic event which compelled Kevin's mother, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. McCarthy], to seek congressional office, the reckless act of violence on the Long Island railroad that fatally injured her husband and left her son critically injured. It is often impossible for a family to get through such a devastating experience. Yet the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. McCarthy] and her son Kevin focused their energies on making a difference and ensuring that such a heinous crime could not so easily happen to another American family. They are courageous people who refused to give up in the face of tragedy. Kevin and Leslie met during his mother's successful 1996 congressional campaign. The positive energy surrounding that race must have worn off on these two, for by spring they were engaged. It is rare that we have the opportunity in the well of the House to celebrate the momentous events in people's personal lives and to recognize the silver lining which life offers us. Mr. Speaker, we wish Kevin and Leslie all the best as they enter this exciting time in their lives. May they accept our sincere congratulations and remember that our thoughts will always be with them.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1534, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1997 because I believe that relief needs to be provided to property owners who are seeking finality to their land use plans, and I have become convinced that reform is necessary. Since cosponsoring the measure, I have heard from opponents, especially many of the local elected officials from the 10th Congressional District, whom I'm proud to represent. I have continued to meet with both advocates and opponents to discuss in depth many of the concerns raised and fully explore the various interpretations of the bill as amended. Earlier this week, I wrote to Chairman Hyde of the House Judiciary Committee with several of my questions and urged him to postpone floor consideration of the bill until these issues are sufficiently resolved. Unfortunately, this measure is before the full House for consideration today and I, despite my support for reform, cannot vote for a measure with such important and potentially far- reaching implications without the time needed to fully explore the ramifications of this amended bill. As I stated, I want to see a more streamlined and fair process for property owners, and I wish that this body had taken the time necessary in developing a needed reform measure, without overburdening our cities and counties. It is my hope that we can continue to work on this issue in the future to develop a consensus bill that can be supported by a coalition of involved parties.

Mrs. TAUSCHER

Mrs. TAUSCHER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his clarification on this important environmental issue.