Tom Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and supporter of H.R. 1635, the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act. The act has 156 cosponsors and enjoys substantial bipartisan support. The act requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a nationwide network of historic sites and museums dedicated to preserving the legacy of the Underground Railroad. Mr. Speaker, the Underground Railroad was used during the 18th and first half of the 19th century to smuggle African-American slaves to freedom. Maine's citizens were active participants in the Underground Railroad. There are 59 possible Underground Railroad sites across the State of Maine. These safe havens were used to harbor runaway slaves and are located in or near towns like Portland, Biddeford, Kennebunkport, Machias, and Waterboro. In particular, the Abyssian Meetinghouse in Portland was an important link in the Underground Railroad. Oral history verifies that the site functioned as a way station for slaves on their way to freedom. Oral history is a useful tool to help determine what buildings were part of the Underground Railroad. Someone's grandmother may remember hearing stories about how slaves were hidden in the town church. Organizations in Maine are working to recover these oral histories in order to identify additional Underground Railroad sites. As people age and die, the stories and information they carry with them die as well. The National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act will ensure the preservation of this aspect of American history so that future generations can learn and benefit from it. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that Maine people were an important part of the national effort to help slaves attain their freedom. Maine served as a final link between the United States and freedom in Canada. The people that comprised the Underground Railroad were motivated by the principles on which our Nation's democracy rests, that all men and all women are created free and equal. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, these freshmen Members of Congress have helped bring real campaign finance reform to the floor. H.R. 2183 should now be debated and passed in this Congress. But we are going to hear some objections. We are going to hear the phrase ``big money.'' I ask you to remember it. We are going to hear the phrase ``free speech.'' Because when some Members of Congress argue that campaign reform stifles free speech, they are really saying that it shuts down big money, and they like big money. They want to keep big money. The Supreme Court has said preventing the appearance and reality of corruption justifies limits on contributions to candidates and parties. To be sure, the First Amendment is a factor. But a soft money ban is constitutional. Issue advocacy can be regulated. Do not be fooled by those who use the rhetoric of free speech to keep campaigns fueled with big money from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals. Support the freshman bill.

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, last February, freshmen Democrats and freshmen Republicans agreed to create a task force on campaign finance reform. We were all veterans of targeted races in 1996. We saw firsthand the explosion of soft money in issue advocacy. We know that if soft money can be used for TV ads, and it can, the existing law on contribution limits has become a sham. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and I cochaired that task force of six Democrats and six Republicans. H.R. 2183, the base bill for this debate, is the product of our freshman task force. It is substantial reform, it is bipartisan reform, and it ought to be passed. Madam Chairman, I am now going to yield to members of the task force and members of the Democratic class officers. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. The freshmen Democrats and the freshmen Republicans came together as our major undertaking in this class, all of us were involved in targeted races in the 1996 election, and we decided we were going to work together. It does not always happen in this House, but we decided to work together, and we put together H.R. 2183, the bipartisan freshman bill. We are proud that that bill is the base bill for a debate in this Congress. We respect everything that other reformers have done, including the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) to bring this cause forward. Now, we could look at this rule and say, ``We are proud of this rule. It is going to give us the complete, open debate that we asked for.'' But when we look back at the history over the last month or two, we see an enormous reluctance to bring up campaign reform. We remember that when the Republican leadership tried to bring up a bill they tried to bring up a bogus reform bill that took two-thirds in order to pass. That was not the way, and the people of this country said, ``No, that is bogus reform. We need real reform.'' Now we have a rule that allows 11 substitutes and many amendments; and the question is, can this process be managed so we have a fair debate here on the floor so we can give the American people what they want? And what they want in every poll in every time we go back to our districts, they say, ``There is too much money in politics. We have got to contain the money. We need campaign finance reform.''

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, Congress has spent millions of dollars to investigate soft money abuses, but there are many Members in this Chamber who will rail against certain big money contributions and then vote against campaign finance reform. The freshmen took a different tact. We put together a bill that would ban soft money, improve candidate reporting and require some disclosure of the outside group advertising. H.R. 2183 closes the soft money loophole, it gets elected officials, candidates, and party officials out of the business of raising money from corporations and unions and the wealthiest contributors. Later this week the long delayed debate on real campaign finance reform will begin. Now we must watch out for poison pills and red herrings. Poison pills are amendments that sound great but are designed to kill campaign finance reform; and red herrings are arguments about suppression of free speech that are designed for simply the same purpose. Support the freshmen bill, support campaign finance reform, let us get on with the business of reforming our campaign finance system.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. That is my understanding. Never before, that in the past the rule has been that before you can subpoena that information or before you could release information which is gathered in the course of a committee investigation, you would need either the consent of the minority or you would have to bring the matter to committee for a committee vote. The majority, as I said, they have more members on the committee. Because they are the majority, they can carry the day. But what is missing when you bypass that procedure is you do not get a chance to air the issues. That is the healthy way to conduct an investigation. That is the way to make it have the flavor of a bipartisan investigation, which this one really does not.

Mr. ALLEN. I have one closing comment for myself and that is this: The power, the investigatory power of this House, is so broad, so powerful, so important that it has got to be handled carefully. It has got to be handled in a way that does not deteriorate into partisan bickering. As those of my colleagues who are on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight with me understand, we continue to slide down. And I think that the only way to pull this investigation back, to get it on track and bring it to a sensible conclusion is to make a change in leadership; and I say that with regret. But it seems to me that it is very important for the health of our democracy and for our ability to function in this House. This investigation is out of control. On the one hand, it seems no longer to respect people's rights of privacy; on the other, it seems to be wasting taxpayers' money. I think that the fundamental flaw, the thing that went wrong from the beginning, was the sense that it could be run by one party against the other. Whatever the numbers are, whether we look at the numbers of documents subpoenaed, the number of witnesses deposed or the targets of the document requests that have been issued by subpoena, they are 98 percent to 99 percent to Democratic targets. We know that both sides have violated the campaign laws. Both sides should be investigated in an efficient, responsible way. And at the end of the day, what we should draw from this is the determination that we are going to change this system; that we are going to contain the influence of money and politics and we are going to step forward and get back to the people's business that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) was referring to, the education, the health care, the Social Security, all of those issues that really brought us to this House in the first place. So it is with some sadness that I say that it seems to me we need to get this investigation back on track, and that means a change in leadership, a change in direction, and get back to the business of this House of Representatives.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I do not come here tonight with any enthusiasm. I am a member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and I have to say, it has been a discouraging year-and-a-half on that committee. There are matters here that need to be investigated and fully investigated, but it is clear to me that the committee has failed to conduct a professional and competent investigation under Chairman Burton's leadership. I have heard the chair and other members of the majority party say that there are Democrats who are stonewalling, who are trying to prevent the committee from getting at the truth. They point to the fact that a couple of weeks ago all of us Democrats on the committee voted against granting immunity for several witnesses. I want to talk about that tonight, because there were good reasons for us to vote against immunity a couple of weeks ago, and there are very good reasons why I expect we will do the same tomorrow. Last fall the same issue came before our committee. Every single Democrat voted for immunity for several witnesses that were coming before us. We voted for immunity in the past, and we certainly will again. But we had a problem last fall. Here is the problem. One of the witnesses came forward and testified to certain violations of immigration and tax laws, and we did not know that he was going to testify about that subject matter. We did not know that he had potential criminal liability in those particular areas. But because we had granted, the committee had granted, full immunity to that person, he can now go scot-free on charges that might have been brought. That is the problem. What happened? The Republican majority did not ask for a proffer of testimony. That is what every good prosecutor would do. Before we are going to grant immunity, we need a written statement of just what your testimony will be and then we will grant you immunity that will cover the subject matter of that testimony and not go beyond it. Two weeks ago, Chairman Burton asked for the committee to grant full immunity for additional witnesses. Well, as far as we are concerned, once burned, twice shy. Democrats asked him, have you secured a proffer of the testimony of those witnesses? And the chairman said, no, we do not have a proffer, no statement of expected testimony. As I said, every good prosecutor would get a proffer, but in this case there was none. Now, we are not going down that road again. I believe the Democrats on this committee will grant immunity in the future as we have in the past, but first this committee has got to clean up its act. Once we have a fair proceeding, once we have a professional investigation, the chair will get full cooperation again. I have to say that the comments from the newspapers around the country are uniform. We are seeing the same thing all around the country. This is a quotation from USA Today: ``Republican leaders will only compound the impression of partisanship if they fail to turn the fund-raising over to a committee with a less biased leader.'' It is unfortunate that that is the case. I think back to when we started this investigation and we said, we objected as Democrats to rules of procedure that gave this chairman more power than had ever been given to any chair of any committee in the House of Representatives in its history; that is, the chair of this committee has complete power to subpoena any documents he wants, to depose any witnesses he wants and to release any information he wants, all without a committee vote and without the consent of the minority. And since the Republicans have a majority on this committee, we know that if they are unified, they can vote to do all that. But at least they would air the issues before they go out.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I was just noticing a quotation that was in the Wall Street Journal, April 10, 1997, a year ago, just over a year ago, a column by Al Hunt. Here is the quotation: Mr. Burton has little regard for fairness. The biggest losers will be taxpayers. The Burton-led circus could cost between $6 million and $12 million. That was over one year ago. Mr. Hunt's words have stood the test of time. As I understand the word now, we are now past the $6 million, headed toward $12 million and the gentlewoman from New York is right. One of the problems with this investigation is that it is so duplicative. We have done this in the Senate side. The Senate, for a mere, a mere $3 million of the taxpayers' money, has gone ahead and held 33 days of hearings and produced an 1100 page report. I quarrel with that report because it did not deal with campaign finance reform at all, but still they completed the investigation within one year. Here we are pushing $6 million, and we have had 13 days of hearings. And we have got no report to show for it, and the whole investigation is discredited.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the motion to go to conference on H.R. 629. This is simply the opportunity for Texas, Vermont, and Maine to continue the process of gaining congressional approval for their low-level radioactive waste compact. The House voted, as several speakers have said, last November by a vote of 309 to 107 to approve this compact. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Act places the responsibility for the disposal of low-level waste upon the States. I do want to come back to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) who, earlier on, made a reference to Maine Yankee. Maine Yankee is, of course, the owner of the nuclear power facility that is now in the process of decommissioning in Maine. But Maine Yankee's position is now different than it was last year. By letter dated March 12, 1998, Maine Yankee makes it clear that it does not object to the proposed compact. It has satisfied itself that it can dispose of its waste in the interim, but it does urge that the compact pass with no amendments. Under this act, the States of Texas, Vermont, and Maine crafted a compact to meet their needs. In Maine, this compact was approved by a three-to-one margin during a referendum. This was not simply passed by the State legislature, which it was, but it was passed on a referendum by the people of Maine. Over the past several years, Congress has approved nine such compacts covering 41 States. The time has now come to add to that list. It is very important from our point of view that, once the bill goes to conference, a clean bill without amendments, without amendments, is reported back to the House and Senate. The member States are opposed to any amendments to the bill. The amendments to the compact will only cause delay and added costs due to likely litigation. This compact did not come easily. It was the result of several years of good-faith negotiations by the three member States. Maine and the other member States do not deserve the additional costs and additional delays that would be the result of unwanted amendments. No compact before this body, no compact has ever been amended without the express consent of the member States. In this case, no consent has been given by Maine, by Texas, or by Vermont. Mr. Speaker, we must move this issue forward and allow Texas, Vermont, and Maine the opportunity to dispose of their low-level radioactive waste.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) and I have been working on this legislation for some time. It is called the Education Child Care Partnership Act. This has been something we and our staffs have really put some time and energy into. It is a bill that, if passed, would really expand working families' options for quality care for their young children. In Maine, when I ran for this office, I called for a new national initiative on child care, and I did that because as I traveled around my district in Maine, what I heard from young parents consistently, day in and day out, was that they were finding that child care was, number one, not readily available and, number two, often more expensive than they could afford. Every day all across this country many parents simply have to go to work and now trust the most precious, the most important people in their lives, their children, to someone else. We have in this country 13 million kids under the age of 6 in child care during the day. And too much of that child care is of mediocre quality but still not affordable to most working families. The Education Child Care Partnership Act, which the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) and I have been working on, would provide families with an affordable, accessible, and quality option for child care for our youngest children. The bill really focuses on children between the ages of zero and six. It earmarks funds within the child care and development block grant for States to fund local education agencies which choose to provide full- day, year-round, school-based child care for children age zero to six. What we are looking for is a seamless system of childhood, early childhood education, because what we have found is that sometimes we have a child care system over here with some child care centers and lots of in-home care, and then over here we have an education institution which really does not begin until the ages of 5 or 6. What we need to do is create, for those States that want it, complete flexibility, complete choice, the option of funding some child care in a school-based setting for a wide variety of reasons. It can be cheaper because the facilities are already provided. It can be quality, because the playground is already there and more resources can go into the care givers. So that is why we did this work, that is why we put this bill together. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for all his work on this bill.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue this dialogue just a little bit longer and start with a few remarks, and then I will yield back to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) again. One of the things I found is that for families with more than one child, transportation issues can really be a headache because they have got one child in school, another child going to child care somewhere else in the city or town. And if they can drop their children off at one place, life is simpler. And some school-based programs extend the use of school bus services to children participating in child care programs. I think this is a new direction for child care and education in this country. It is not going on everywhere, but it is going on in my district in Maine. It is going on in Arkansas. It is going on in a number of places around the country. Some families, some parents tell me that when a school vacation comes or summer vacation comes, it is really hard to find a place for our kids to go. We do not want to leave them at home watching television all the time. We want someplace where they will be motivated, interested, and have some programs that are helpful to them. The programs that would be eligible under this bill are full-day, year-round programs. So they would be targeted at schools that will stay open during school vacations for the purposes of providing child care, and they will stay open during the summers for the purposes of providing child care. Quality school-based care programs utilize existing resources in that school, such as arts supplies, sports equipment, playgrounds and so on. And it really gives school employees and social service agencies a way to enhance the quality of the programs that they provide. I believe that school-based care makes logical sense for both school- aged children as well as preschool children. I believe firmly that if we do not deal with the issues that kids have between zero and six, if we do not pay attention to that age group, we are missing a chance to help kids get off on the right foot. What we need is the national will to leave no child behind and the resources to make that happen. I believe that a country that can support the salaries of players in the NBA and the NFL and major league baseball can take better care of its kids. So I rise today to challenge my colleagues to commit to policies and practices that reflect the importance of those early years in a child's life. Our mission is simple: Leave no child behind. I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) because the Education Child Care Partnership Act has been a partnership between our offices, and we now can look forward to having other Members of this body support it. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) for concluding comments.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, the Burton investigation is an embarrassment. I know; I am a member of the committee. Yesterday, the Republican leadership apologized to the Republican Members of this House. They should apologize to the American people. Millions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted on a partisan, unprofessional, indeed, inept investigation. White House personnel like Marsha Scott and Maggie Williams have been deposed for days and forced to incur thousands of dollars in legal fees to answer questions asked by other investigators. Apologize to them. The Federal budget, a patient's bill of rights, improved education, more support for child care, all are being neglected while Republican staffers listen to taped conversations between Webster Hubbell and his wife and pour over Democratic documents. For all that, apologize to the American people. Let us get on with the business of American families. Replace the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dan Burton) not just his staff.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. As one of the cochairs of the bipartisan freshman effort, the freshmen on both sides of the aisle have been working on this for a very long period of time, and the Democrats, in particular, have over 30 freshmen on this bill. What we are concerned about is the commitment made in the press release issued by the leadership on April 22, 1998, which said, ``Campaign finance reform will be brought to the floor in May and fully debated under an open rule.'' One of our concerns about any delay, any slippage in that schedule, is that delay here means there is less time for the Senate to take up whatever we do if we are successful in passing reform here. That is why this is not just an academic issue. It is not just an issue that matters here in the House, but matters to the success or failure of campaign reform this year. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reductions Act of 1998.'' This important legislation is aimed at protecting our children from mercury, one of the most dangerous toxins in our environment. Mercury is a naturally occurring, highly toxic element. Its presence in our environment has built to dangerous levels due to the lack of regulation of power plants, waste incinerators, and some types of manufacturing. Those regions downwind from the major pollution sources are most at risk because mercury can travel great distances before falling to the Earth and washing into our lakes, rivers and streams. My home State of Maine, the tailpipe for our nation's polluted air, has some of the highest mercury levels in the country. As I've often said, the wind travels west to east, always has, always will. Our children are most at risk. Mercury poisoning can be devastating for children and pregnant women. Contamination can cause damage to the developing central nervous system. Adults can also be affected. Symptoms range from numbness in extremities to paralysis and kidney disease. The most common form of mercury poisoning occurs from eating polluted fish. Exposure can also occur through drinking water and soil contamination. Several states, including Maine, have issued health warnings due to mercury contamination that cover every single body of inland water. Our wildlife is also in danger. Maine's loons and bald eagles, symbols of the state's beauty and natural habitat, have mercury levels high enough to interfere with reproduction. In fact Maine's bald eagle reproductive rates have remained well below the rest of the country. Studies have found significantly high levels of mercury and other toxins in eggs and eaglets. The Clean Air Act has achieved remarkable success since its inception. Our families are breathing easier because we have reduced the emission levels of lead and other toxins. Unfortunately, mercury has fallen through the cracks. The Environmental Protection Agency recently released its ``Mercury Study Report to Congress.'' This detailed report contains volumes of information on the dangers of mercury and how to control the levels emitted into our environment. Now that we have the long-awaited report, we must take action. The legislation I am introducing will do just that. The ``Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reduction Act of 1998'' requires the EPA to set mercury emission standards for the largest sources. The bill sets an emissions reduction standard of 95 percent for coal-fired powerplants and other utilities, as well as incinerators and chlor-alkali plants. Many may argue this cannot be done, that the costs of controls will be much too high. I disagree. We know mercury can be reduced or removed from powerplants and products. Technology exists for companies to meet the standards, and this bill will allow them to choose the best approach for their facility. We have reduced or eliminated other toxins, without the catastrophic effects the utilities predicted. The time has come to do it with mercury. When I ran for office last year, people in Maine told me the country needed to continue the environmental strides made by leaders like Senator Edmund Muskie and Senator George Mitchell. Maine is proud of its tradition of environmental activism. Maine Governor Angus King and his administration have taken steps to reduce the levels of mercury emitted by sources within Maine. That, however, will not protect our children from sources that cross our boundaries. Maine has cleaned up its act, and now we must ask for the rest of the nation to help. Just five years ago, 27 states had issued mercury advisories covering almost 900 water bodies. Today, the number of states with advisories has grown to 39, and the number of water bodies affected has increased to 1,675. The problem is getting worse, not better. We are heading down a path where the entire nation could be under a mercury advisory. Do you want to explain to your children and grandchildren that the reason they can't eat the fresh water fish they just caught is because we failed to take action necessary to protect them? Mr. Speaker, mercury is one of our last remaining unregulated toxins. We must act, and we must act fast. This is not an easy task. We can't see the mercury dispersed through the air and falling to the ground. However, we now know more about mercury than we ever have. We know the solutions to the problem and we have the technology to fix it. We must implement new strategies now. The future of our environment for our children and grandchildren is at stake.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation which I developed with Representative Snyder of Arkansas. This bill aims to improve working families' access to affordable, reliable child care. The Education-Child Care Partnership Act earmarks funds within the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) for states to fund Local Education Agencies (LEAs) which choose to provide full-day, year-round school-based child care for children aged 0 to 6. The Education-Child Care Partnership Act develops a seamless system of early childhood education. Under this legislation, funds would be funneled through the states to LEAs to be used for (1) operation of a qualified school-based child care program, (2) hiring and training child care personnel, (3) construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of facilities for school based child care. Because child care is such a local concern, this bill gives the states and LEAs the maximum flexibility in how they choose to administer the grants made available under this program. The breakthroughs in research on brain development in the early years of a child's life strongly underscores the need for quality child care. Now is the time to focus our attention on education, and quality health and child care. Utilizing our existing resources, our schools, for child care can enhance the affordability, accessibility, and quality of child care. School-based care is an accessible alternative of child care as local schools are often community centers. For families with more than one child, transportation issues are made simpler if they can drop their children off at one place. Some school-based programs extend the use of school bus services to children participating in the child care programs. The programs that would be eligible under this legislation are full day, year round programs. This helps parents who often face child care difficulties during school vacations and summer breaks. School-based care programs are able to provide quality programs by utilizing existing resources at the schools such as art supplies, sports equipment, playgrounds, etc. Many collaborate with other community resources such as school employees and social service agencies to further enhance the quality of their programs. Many programs are eligible to participate with the USDA Child and Adult Food Program and/or allow parents to purchase school lunches and snacks for the children in child care. There are currently a number of school-based programs for before and after school care for school aged children. These programs should be supported and expanded. I believe that school-based care makes logical sense for both school-age children as well as preschool children. Recent research suggests that the first years of life are crucial for a child's emotional and intellectual development. As recently as 15 years ago, neuroscientists assumed that brain structure was genetically determined at the time of birth. They did not recognize that a child's early years have a tremendous impact on the structure of his or her brain. Neuroscientists have found that throughout development, even prior to birth, the brain is affected by environmental conditions, such as nourishment, care, surroundings, and stimulation. The human brain is constructed to benefit from experience and quality teaching, particularly in the first years of life. Teachers and principals at Maine elementary schools tell me that in the last 5 years especially, but also for the last 10 or 15 years, they have seen a significant increase in 5 and 6 year old children with little or no capacity to play with other children or to participate in class. These kids lack the basic social skills that allow ordinary interaction with others. Consequently, they are extraordinarily difficult to teach. Many get their only real meals at school. Teachers and principals do not know how to deal with them. The explanation is always the same. They come from families where substance abuse is chronic, and neglect follows. If we miss early opportunities to promote healthy development and learning, later remediation may be more difficult and expensive. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that as we debate education, health, and child care issues that we take into account the compelling evidence regarding early childhood development. I urge my colleagues to support the Education-Child Care Partnership Act in the months to come.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill before us today because I believe that vouchers are the wrong way to improve our public schools. Taxpayer dollars should be spent to improve our public schools for all children, not on a $45 million unproven program that will reach only a small minority of D.C. students. This bill will cost over $7 million a year, and I believe that money could be used to help all of the 78,000 students in the District's public schools, rather than the 2,000 or so who may benefit from vouchers. I believe that what we are seeing here is an effort to try out in the District of Columbia an idea that Members would like to bring and would be more appropriately dealt with around the country in other States. I serve as a member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, and our subcommittee has held hearings on the state of the District's public schools. They are hurting. Serious action is essential to give the students of the District the education they want and deserve. The District is moving ahead with an academic plan to improve student achievement, develop qualified teachers and strengthen its infrastructure. One example is the District's new summer STARS, Students and Teachers Achieving Results and Success, program. STARS is intended to end social promotion and give students an intensive, highly-structured opportunity to gain important math and reading skills. It shows how committed the District is to improving student achievement. Our goal is to improve the District's public schools for all children, not to weaken them for the benefit of a chosen few; and despite all of the emotion and argument around this issue, I believe this is the right course. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in the form at the desk.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?