Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, we have heard several different arguments in this debate. I, too, agree we must be very honest in this debate. It comes down to a simple fact, that no amount of debate will change the fact that many of my colleagues just fundamentally oppose a woman's right to choose. Like it or not, abortion is a legal medical procedure. The majority of Americans support keeping it a legal medical procedure. This amendment would simply ensure that Federal employees have access to that legal medical procedure. It would not require a health plan to offer abortion coverage, it does not require any employee to choose a health plan which covers abortion. It simply ensures that our Nation's public servants have the choice to health insurance which would provide coverage of legal, doctor-recommended abortions which are necessary to preserve a woman's health. This is not a question of taxpayer money being used to subsidize abortion. The health insurance premiums are earned by employees of our government every bit as much as their paycheck. The paycheck and the premium belong to the employee, not to the government and not to the taxpayers. What right do we have to dictate what someone can or cannot do with the paycheck or with the health benefit that they receive? This amendment is about basic fairness, about allowing the women who serve in our Federal Government to choose a health insurance plan which covers an important aspect of women's health. Under the existing language in the bill, health plans cannot cover an abortion, even when a doctor tells a patient that it is needed to preserve the mother's health. Why are women who work in the Federal government treated as second-class citizens? This is not acceptable. I urge my colleagues, do not impose their personal beliefs on our public servants. Give women the dignity of being able to choose for themselves. Support this amendment to strike this dangerous provision.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, earlier today this House voted down an attempt to strike the abortion restriction from this bill. And if Members oppose abortion, there is no better way to try to avoid it than to increase access to contraceptives. My colleagues are offbase with their amendment which is a transparent attempt to cut off access to birth control. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) already has a conscience clause that allows religious plans to opt out if they choose to. In fact, five plans have chosen to do just that. I also take issue with the contention that a health plan, a nonhuman entity, can have a moral objection to anything. Individual providers do not have to prescribe contraceptives if they do not choose to. Mr. Chairman, let us get to the base of this discussion. We know what this is about. We know that those offering this amendment do not believe in birth control. They have said this outright, that they believe that oral contraceptives used by tens of millions of American women every day are a form of abortion. And to imply that those women are abortionists is an affront to every American woman and shows how out of touch some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really are. I ask again and again and again that they do not impose their personal agenda on others. If my colleagues want to reduce abortions in this country, and we all want to do that, there is no better way than to support contraceptives and to support birth control. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey amendment and to oppose the Smith amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from New Jersey for offering the amendment. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and myself were as, as has been pointed out, shocked and dismayed with what happened with the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We have had a strong standard for two decades. The interest here is to make sure that our infants and children are protected and that the clothing that they wear has the fire-resistant material that for so many years has made a real difference in the lives and well-being of children in this country. I want to commend my colleague Rob Andrews for offering this very important amendment today and I thank him for his hard work on this issue which is so important to the safety of our nation's children. I know Congressman Andrews and Congressman Weldon shared my shock and dismay at the Consumer Product Safety Commission's actions in weakening the fire safety standard which governed children's pajamas. For more than two decades, children's sleepwear has been held to a more stringent standard of fire safety than any other type of clothing. The National Fire Protection Association estimates that without this strict standard, there would have been ten times as many deaths and significantly more burn injuries relating to children's sleepwear. Yet for reasons I can not understand, the CPSC has weakened that standard, so that now there is no fire safety standard for infants up to nine months, and no fire safety standard for ``tight fitting'' clothes up to children's size 14. This action leaves children in grave danger of being burned or killed in a fire. Infants are completely defenseless in this type of situation. If we don't act, the numbers of children burned in these types of incidents will only rise. This amendment will make sure that only sleepwear which conforms to the fire safety standard passed in the Flammable Fabrics Act more than two decades ago is imported into our country. As the CPSC has again decided--for reasons which quite frankly mystify me--to stay with the weaker standard, this is a step in the right direction. It will also send a strong message to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, letting them know that the Congress is extremely concerned about this issue and is not content to let it drop. Congress has the responsibility to do all that we can to protect the health and safety of our nation's children. This amendment will help us to do just that. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and help to ensure that children are kept safe from burn injuries and even death. Support the Andrews amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that Congress has not yet enacted common sense gun safety legislation to save the lives of American children. Today, we heard firsthand from Colorado students who pleaded for Congress to take the steps needed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children. But congressional leaders have not acted. Congress has not listened to the children whose classmates' lives were claimed by gun violence. And today we see even more delay, more obstacles blocking efforts to save children's lives. The time is long past to enact gun safety measures, but sadly the leaders of this Congress have consistently turned their backs on limited common sense measures that would take children out of the line of fire. Today I listened to a young woman named Erin from Columbine High School talk about the tragic loss she suffered when close friends of hers were shot dead. She fought back tears as she said that no one should have to experience the loss that she has. Erin and her fellow Colorado high school students urged the Congress to move forward to protect young people with reasonable gun safety measures such as those passed by the Senate. Ensuring that criminals will not be able to buy weapons at gun shows, that child safety locks will be provided with handguns and that unnecessarily lethal high capacity ammunition clips will be kept out of the country. This effort tonight is just one more excuse not to do what the American public would like us to do. If this was a problem, why did we not deal with it weeks ago? If it is not a problem, it appears that Republican leaders are using procedural gimmicks to go back on the commitment made to appoint conferees who will support gun safety measures, including a ban on importing dangerous high capacity ammunition clips. The clip ban passed without objection in the House and must be part of any gun safety package that this Congress passes. When students who have experienced tragic gun violence put their pleas in heartfelt and straightforward terms as Colorado students did today, how in good conscience can Congress delay any longer? Let us go to conference, let us do what it takes to make our schools and our streets safer for our young people by passing gun safety legislation. Let us stop making excuses and start making progress.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Republican leadership killed modest gun safety legislation, not once, but three times. Backroom arm twisting by high-powered members of the NRA left the 13 members of the Committee on Appropriations switching their votes on sensible reforms. We could have closed the loophole on background checks at gun shows, banned the importation of high-capacity ammunition clips, and ensured that all handguns come with child safety locks. But instead, there is no progress to report, only partisanship. We have been waiting for months for the Republican leadership to act on this issue. Thirteen children are killed every day by guns. Yet, on this side of the aisle, we are stymied and stonewalled at every turn. The Republican leadership is woefully out of step with American parents. Youth violence is a complex problem. It requires several answers. Parental involvement, safe schools, better discipline, and violence in the media are all involved, but gun safety is part of this puzzle. Now is the wrong time to do the bidding of the National Rifle Association. I urge the Speaker, take up sensible measures passed by the Senate. Appoint conferees immediately. Acting now is the right thing to do. We have already waited too long, and too many youngsters have died.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Slaughter- Horn amendment to provide a desperately needed increase for the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts. Since 1995, serious funding cuts have endangered the work of the NEA and the NEH across the country. Today, we have the opportunity to provide the first meaningful increase for these programs that are so deserving of our support. The cuts on Humanities programs have fallen disproportionately on programs which bring Humanities into our communities, for example, library based reading programs, lecture series, historical exhibits and radio and television programming. Some of my colleagues would have you believe that the NEA only supports projects in a select few cities, and that it is not worth our time or money to make the arts and humanities a national priority. But the NEA's new Challenge America program is designed so that nearly 1,000 communities nationwide would receive modest arts program grants, and 150 communities across the country would benefit from larger grants. One of the most exciting aspects of the Challenge America program is its potential to help at-risk youth--children who are slipping through the cracks and need exposure to a constructive new way of self- expression and self-esteem. Recent studies have shown that participation in arts programs helps children learn to express anger appropriately and enhance communication skills with adults and peers. Students who have benefitted from arts programs have also shown an improved ability to finish tasks, less delinguent behavior, and a more positive attitude toward school. The results are in: we must support these programs now, while their benefits are just beginning to be realized. The NEH and NEA make up just a tiny portion of our budget--and that investment pays off in so many ways, spurring jobs and private investment and preserving our heritage for generations to come. Who knows how many children have had their interest sparked in a whole new subject thanks to an NEA or NEH sponsored program. Don't put out that spark. Don't destroy our heritage. Vote for this amendment, support the NEA and the NEH.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct conferees to commend the President and our troops for the success of the air war over Yugoslavia. By passing this amendment, we reaffirm Congress' support for our men and women in the armed forces who carried out this vital mission, and for their efforts to bring justice to a devastated region and send an important message to Milosevic that his savage campaign of ethnic cleansing will not be tolerated. 27 Reservists from the 103rd Air Control Squadron in Orange--part of my District in Connecticut--volunteered to join our troops supporting the NATO effort in Kosovo. I am proud of the dedication and bravery of these men and women, and honored to have the opportunity to commend them for the sacrifice they made to protect our nation and the values it represents. We must let our forces know of our prayers and our gratitude for their efforts to counter aggression, end the misery, and foster peace. Support the Motion to Instruct.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct the conferees, yes, to commend the President of the United States, our Commander-in-Chief, and our troops, for the success of the air war over Yugoslavia. I say shame on those who do not want to honor our troops or to honor our Commander-in-Chief. If we may recall in this body, some of these are the same people, indeed, who refused to authorize the air strikes in Yugoslavia when our young men and women were, in fact, flying through enemy fire. What is also interesting to note is over the last 2 weeks, the House Democratic leadership have urged a similar kind of an effort to have a bipartisan resolution in the same way that the other body did, and they have been turned down at every single turn, in order to do this in a bipartisan way. If we are serious about what we are doing here today, we need in fact to say, thanks, and commend the Commander-in-Chief of this United States for his leadership and his efforts to honor the valor of the young men and women who fought so bravely so that in fact, yes, we can stand here today and talk to the people of the United States. That is what both of them did for us.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. We had a chance to protect the privacy of American consumers. The Republican leadership blocked it. Instead, we have a bill that enables the insurance and the banking industry to disclose an individual's personal health and financial information without their consent. What will failure to include these basic privacy provisions in the bill mean for Americans? One could be denied medical coverage based on incorrect information in one's medical record, records that consumers would have no opportunity to correct. Medical research would be stifled because no one would trust that their participation in a medical study would be private. As a cancer survivor, I can tell my colleagues that the thought of my personal records being zipped around the Internet is frightening. This is the Big Brother bill. Big Brother is watching, watching one's medical records, watching one's financial records. He knows when one has been sick. He knows how much one has in one's bank account. Enough is enough Congress. This bill violates the constitutional rights of American citizens. We can do better.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of my colleagues to the AIDS epidemic which sub-Saharan Africa faces today. In all, 11.5 million people have died in sub-Saharan Africa since the disease emerged in the 1980's, and 22.5 million people now living with the HIV virus are expected to die in the next ten years. By the end of 1997, at least 7.8 million children in this area of Africa alone were left orphans by the age of 14 due to AIDS. I am submitting for the Record these articles from the May 29th issue of the USA Today, which detail the problem. [From the USA Today, May 24, 1999] Time Bomb South of Sahara--U.S. Urged to Confront Reality: 20% Could Die (By Steve Sternberg) Soweto, South Africa.--When the AIDS virus detonates in this black township of 3 million in a decade or so, the disease will wipe out about 600,000 souls--almost six times as many people as the atomic bombs killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But unlike a nuclear blast or world war, the AIDS crisis is an explosion in slow motion, a creeping chain reaction with no end in sight. There is no sound, no searing heat, no mushroom cloud, no buildings reduced to rubble. Just one mute death after another. Sandra Thurman has come here--to the country where AIDS is spreading faster than in any other on Earth--to break that silence. Director of President Clinton's Office of National AIDS Policy, Thurman hopes to bring home to the American people and to Clinton the immensity of the crisis in South Africa and the other countries south of the Sahara that form the epicenter of AIDS. To this end, Thurman and a small team of U.S. officials recently traveled through South Africa and three other countries at the heart of Africa's AIDS epidemic: Zambia, Zimbabwe and Uganda. A USA TODAY reporter and photographer accompanied them to document the ravages of what is now the No. 1 cause of death in Africa. In all, 11.5 million people have died in sub-Saharan Africa since the epidemic emerged in the early 1980s, and 22.5 million now living with the virus are expected to die in the next 10 years, according to UNAIDS, the United Nations' AIDS agency. Staggering as the numbers are, Thurman believes that the sub-Saharan epidemic has been met with indifference by Americans and, to some extent, by their government, which spends $74 million a year on AIDS programs in the region. In contrast, Congress this month voted to spend $1.1 billion to assist roughly 750,000 Kosovo refugees. ``When you're looking at whole generations of adults and children in jeopardy--we ought to be able to hold hands and sing Kumbaya around that,'' Thurman says. ``We can't do anything if we can't do this.'' To gauge the social and political costs of AIDS here, Thurman visited cities and shantytowns, orphanages and hospitals, taking in scenes from an epidemic. One of Thurman's first stops was at the Javabu clinic, headquarters of the Soweto Project--an effort to unite medical care, social support and AIDS prevention. The project is the brainchild of Mark Ottenweller, 10 years ago a prosperous internist in a leafy suburb of Atlanta. Today, at 47, he works in Johannesburg as a medical director of Hope Worldwide, the relief arm of the International Church of Christ. The clinic is housed in a small cluster of brick buildings on a broad lawn, bordered by the brilliant splashes of jacaranda and bougainvillea. To its beneficiaries, it's a lifeline. Mary Mudzingwa, 35, mother of Chipo, 9, and Gift, 5, credits the Soweto Project for helping her adapt to life with

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the President's proposal to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, provide prescription drug coverage for seniors, give middle class tax cuts and eliminate the Federal debt are well-rounded and thoughtful. Saving Social Security and Medicare and extending their solvency needs to be a top priority of this Congress. Prescription drug coverage for seniors is a critical part of any modern health program. Treatment with medication is cost effective when compared to treating late stage ailments with surgery or other in- patient care. Our seniors who struggle every day for their prescription drugs should not have to choose between paying for food and paying for medication. A prescription drug benefit will prepare Medicare and our seniors' health care for the 21st century. Fortunately, we are in a position to accomplish these goals due to a strong economy and a once in a generation Federal surplus. Providing prescription drug coverage for seniors as well as providing tax relief for working families is sound and responsible. This opportunity must not be squandered; it must not be wasted. We need to provide for seniors for their future.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me. I rise today in strong opposition to this bill. We all believe that young women should turn to their parents for guidance and for support, and do my colleagues know what? Most do. Unfortunately, Congress is unable to legislate strong and healthy family relationships, and there are times in some families where a young person cannot turn to her parents for fear of physical abuse, and the so-called Child Custody Protection Act would leave those young women with nowhere to turn. The Republicans claim that they want to protect young women from sexual predators forcing them across State lines. This is a worthy goal. We all share this goal. But nowhere in this legislation does it specify that it is illegal to use force or threat of force to transport a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion and avoid parental consent laws. This is a key omission, and without that distinction the bill would make it illegal for any adult other than a parent from taking a young woman out of State for an abortion, which I would like to point out is a legal medical procedure. It means that a young woman who is in a time of tremendous emotional need would be unable to turn to a stepparent, a grandmother, an aunt, an older sister, or even a trusted member of the clergy, without placing that person at risk for breaking the law. I might add that the Republicans in the committee would not make an exception for the case of incest. They voted down a waiver or an exception for incest. Now do my colleagues want to tell me that an incestual relationship is one with a loving parent and that is the person that a young woman ought to turn to? My God, what are we trying to do here? The Child Custody Protection Act would only isolate a young woman in time of greatest need. Let me just say that do not play out, and I say this to some of my colleagues, do not play out your own personal philosophies which people respect, but do not do that at the risk of jeopardizing the health, the safety of young women. This is not our job. Do not turn grandmothers, trusted adults into criminals in this country. I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join in paying tribute to one of Connecticut's finest school administrators and community activists. People like Carl Balestracci are what make communities strong. From his important work educating the young people of Guilford for the past 32 years to his community involvement in many other settings, he has dedicated his life to the people of Guilford. I often speak of our nation's need for talented, creative, enthusiastic teachers who are ready to help our children learn and grow. My good friend Carl is just that kind of educator. Throughout his career, he has touched the lives of thousands of children from elementary school to high school. Carl began as a special education teacher in New Haven--working with some of our community's most vulnerable children. He has been leading the fine Guilford schools for nearly two decades, and the most important testament to his talent is the capability of the intelligent young people that have emerged from these schools. Public education is the cornerstone of the American dream, leveling the playing field and providing every child with the opportunity to make the most of his or her talents. It is talented professionals like Carl who truly shape the leaders of tomorrow. He is dedicated to the positive development of not only our children's intellect, but their character development as well. As a participant in the Assets Program along with leaders from the Guilford Police, local clergy, and other educators, he has led a community wide effort to foster strong values and character in our youth. As a lifelong resident of Guilford, Carl is deeply involved in the life of our community. His active participation in the Democratic Town Committee, the Police Commission, and the Fife and Drum Corps have made him so visible and highly-regarded that I am sure many would agree that Carl Balestracci is truly a Guilford institution. Today, as Carl celebrates his retirement, I would like to express my deepest thanks and appreciation for his tireless efforts for the town of Guilford. He is a community leader who is second to none, and his talent and commitment have truly left our community a better place. It is with great pride that I join friends and family to wish Carl many more years of health and happiness.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to congratulate the New Haven Commission on Equal Opportunity on its 35th Anniversary. I wish I could be there today as the community gathers to celebrate this wonderful occasion. The New Haven Commission on Equal Opportunity is the oldest municipal civil rights agency in the United States. In 1964, after attending the U.S. Conference of Mayors hosted by President Kennedy, former Mayor Richard Lee returned to New Haven with a commitment to combat discrimination in all forms and a determination to make the city of New Haven a national model of equality. Together with the New Haven Board of Aldermen, he established the New Haven Commission on Equal Opportunity. For more than three decades, the Commission has been on the front lines of the battle to extend equal opportunity to all. In recent years, the Commission has developed a city-wide plan to combat sexual harassment in the workplace, as well as a unique tracking system to ensure contract compliance in all city construction projects. In fighting to protect the rights of women, minorities, and workers, the New Haven Commission on Equal Opportunity is faithful to Mayor Lee's original vision and is a vital force in our community. It is with great pride that I extend my congratulations to the New Haven Commission on Equal Opportunity and Executive Director John Cox on its 35th Anniversary. I offer my sincere thanks and appreciation for all your work and best wishes for continued success.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, for the past 2 years, the American public has been very clear in its desire for managed care reform. It has sent the same consistent message time and time again that medical decisions should be made by doctors and patients and not by insurance company bureaucrats. Yet, the Republican leadership foiled meaningful HMO reform in the last Congress, and they are stalling as we speak. Today, congressional Democrats are signing a discharge petition calling for real managed care reform to be brought to the House floor immediately, because the Republican leadership will not bring that bill to the floor of the House. This petition calls for a very, very simple set of comments: the ability to choose one's own doctor, an easy thing to grasp on to, guaranteed access to emergency rooms, guaranteed access to specialty care. Freedom from gag rules to prevent doctors from offering care, and the ability to hold HMOs accountable. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to sign on to the discharge petition. The families of this country should be able to make their medical decisions free from the heavy hand of HMO accountants. Let us sign our names today and support a real patients' bill of rights.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last week, in the dead of the night, the Republican leadership responded to the tragedy in Littleton, Colorado, by trying to weaken gun safety laws. Instead of taking up the bipartisan measures already approved by the other Chamber, the Republican leadership joined with the NRA to kill common-sense gun safety measures and blow holes in the Brady law. Now, we are back to square one. But I am an optimist, and I believe that this body can do what is right for America. I call on my colleagues to meet us halfway, close the loophole once and for all that allows criminals to arm themselves at gun shows without any background check at all. Let us ensure that handguns are sold with child safety locks so that children do not accidentally hurt themselves or anyone else when they find a weapon at home. These are mainstream ideas that parents and families in the country want passed. The cost of delay is steep. Thirteen children are killed every day with guns. One hundred thousand guns are brought to schools every year. Let us take up gun legislation that will keep guns in responsible hands.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last week the House had the chance to do the right thing and pass common-sense gun safety legislation, that, in fact, the American people support overwhelmingly. But the House leadership chose instead to cave in to the wishes of the NRA, the National Rifle Association. It was outrageous. House leaders actually chose to respond to the tragedy at Littleton by trying to weaken gun safety laws. Never before have I seen the will of the American people so totally ignored. The House last week failed to take reasonable and needed action to reverse the tide of youth violence, but that will not and must not be the end of the story. The tragic shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, claimed 15 lives and brought sharply into focus the crisis of youth violence afflicting our country. When 13 children a day die from gunfire, we have a crisis that the Congress of the United States should respond to. We know that there is no one solution to the challenge of youth violence. We need to encourage stronger relationships between parents and children. We need to make sure that schools have the resources that they need, resources to reduce class sizes so that students get individual attention, and that teachers can handle and keep a handle on their classes. We need resources for counselors and for mental health professionals, and we need to lessen the negative influence of violence in our media. All of these things we need to do. But we cannot ignore the fact that angry and troubled youth exact the horrible price that we saw in Littleton only when they can get their hands on dangerous firearms. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold used firearms that were purchased at a gun show. T.J. Solomon shot his classmates in Conyers, Georgia, after taking guns without child safety locks from his parents' house. Sensible gun safety measures must be a part of a comprehensive approach to youth violence. Our colleagues in the Senate did the right thing to respond to our country's crisis of youth violence. They passed limited, but needed, measures to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals. The bill passed by the Senate would close the loophole that allows criminals to buy weapons at gun shows; close the loophole that allows importation of high-capacity ammunition clips, and require that child safety locks be provided when handguns are sold. The measure passed the other body, by the other body are not radical, and they were passed in a bipartisan way. They will not take away anyone's guns. They will not keep any law-abiding citizens from buying a gun. They will simply put in place a few needed protections to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children. This House should have passed these measures last week when we had the chance, but we did not. Why did the House refuse to take such a basic step as to close the gun show loophole? I heard a colleague of mine say that closing the loophole would create too much paperwork, that it would be an inconvenience. Imagine that. An inconvenience. Tell that to the parents of a murdered child. Tell them about paperwork. Tell them about the annoyance of waiting 3 days to buy a gun. Compare the hardship of waiting 3 days to buy a gun to the hardship of endless days of agony and mourning the loss of a murdered child. This Congress should be ashamed for caring more about reducing paperwork than reducing gun violence. I am disappointed that the House failed to take steps that we needed to last week, but that is not the end of the story. We are here tonight to make clear that we are determined to see common-sense gun safety legislation passed. The American people deserve no less. Many Members have strongly supported efforts to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands, and I applaud them for their efforts. Among those who have been the most committed to protecting children from gun violence have been the women in the House of Representatives, and that is not an accident. Women are in tune to the devastating effects that gun violence has on American families and have rightly lead the charge to improve gun safety. We will keep the pressure on House leaders to ensure that effective measures are taken to protect children from violence. House leaders should act quickly to negotiate a compromise that includes the Senate-passed gun safety measures. But if the House leaders once again fail to take a strong stand to keep guns from criminals and kids, then we will keep searching for opportunities to pass the legislation that is called for by the American people. I call on my Republican colleagues to stand up for gun safety measures. Each time that Congress has passed legislation to keep criminals from getting their hands on weapons, it is because there has been bipartisan support. I am disappointed that a much smaller share of Republicans voted for real gun safety legislation last week than when the House passed the successful Brady law that has blocked hundreds of thousands of gun sales to criminals.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) for helping to organize today's morning hour. This week Americans will honor working men and women who help others to organize, who help people take those first difficult steps toward forming a union that protects their right to a livable wage, affordable health care, a secure retirement and a safe workplace. United employees are a powerful balancing force against runaway corporate power. United employees win better working conditions, pay and benefits for all workers, not just those who belong to unions. I have always been unapologetic about working arm in arm with Americans who fight for the values that make this Nation great: respect, fairness, security and an opportunity to give our families a brighter future. As we all know, today's battles are infused with these values. We have come a long way since the days when the United States did not know the meaning of employee rights. We have a labor movement to thank. Unions fought to free their members from back-breaking labor, unsafe conditions and from low wages. Unions fought for basic rights. Many a union worker gave their lives for these gains and these principles. My own mother worked in a sweatshop in New Haven, Connecticut, during the early part of this century, slaving over a sewing machine. She worked long days in awful conditions for only pennies a dress. No one should ever have to return to these days. But we do not need to refer to the history books to understand the need for unions today. Organized labor is as relevant and as important today as during those first organizing drives. We do not have sweatshops on the same scale, and there are a litany of labor laws on the books, but attacks still continue. Workers' rights are eaten away at constantly. Employees are losing leverage and their say in the workplace and in the larger community every day. Over the past 3 years, with the blessing of the Republican majority, the business lobby has encouraged efforts to cut enforcement of worker protection laws and blocked development of programs to improve worker health and worker safety. I want to talk about a victory in the movement to organize that happened last year in my own district, the Third District of Connecticut, and honor the hard-working men and women who fought for that victory. Last spring, 230 employees at the New Haven Omni Hotel won the right to openly choose their own union. This was a victory over the hotel's long-standing insistence on a secret ballot election. In a fight for the basic right to choose their own union, the employees were supported by elected leaders such as myself, local clergy, academics, students and civil rights groups. These groups held hearings, they met with hotel managers, and they even threatened to boycott the hotel. Such support should be the rule, not the exception, but sadly it is not. According to a Cornell University study, one in four employees who are active in union campaigns are fired each year for exercising their right to choose a union. Ninety-one percent of employers, when they learn that their workers want to form a union, force employees to attend closed-door meetings, to listen to anti-union propaganda, and once they have organized, working men and women still have to fight for basic rights. At the Stratford Army Engine Plant, Yale and Sikorski employees have had to fight for livable wages, health care, and adequate retirement policies. These are not only assaults on unions, they are assaults on the integrity of our communities. Since the beginning, working men and women have fought for the values that make this Nation great, equality, fairness, security, and an opportunity to give one's family a bright future. The battle has not been easy, but together we will turn the tide and once again help improve working American's lives and set new directions for this country. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) for inviting me to join this morning. It is an honor to be here every day and every day in the fight to uphold American basic values. The fight is worth it, especially on behalf of American families.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dingell amendment and in support of the McCarthy amendment. On behalf of of American parents and their children.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the courageous gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time. I listened to a colleague of ours on television this morning say that we should not close the gun show loophole because it would create too much paperwork, it would be an inconvenience. An inconvenience? Tell that to the parents of a murdered child. Talk to them about the inconvenience of paperwork. Tell them about the annoyance of waiting 3 days for a gun, and one gun that would be kept out of the hands of a criminal. Wake up, Congress. Thirteen children a day are killed by guns in this country. And we do not want people to be inconvenienced? I ask you tonight to vote with your heart. Compare the hardship. I ask you to vote for the McCarthy amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, Melinda Flowers was 4 years old when she and her 8 year old sister found a .38-caliber pistol in their mother's closet. They did not know the gun was loaded, and they played with the gun, pointing it at various items around the room. The gun went off. Melinda was fatally shot in the forehead. As of today, Melinda Flowers' death will no longer remain anonymous. She and the 13 youngsters who die every single day because of guns are not nameless, faceless statistics; they are real people, real children who are dying from an epidemic. Over the course of the next 2 days, Members of this body can choose between two options. They can vote for modest, common-sense gun safety provisions already approved by the United States Senate, or they can vote for a watered-down gun bill. The mothers and fathers of this country are consistent in their plea for modest gun safety measures. Child safety locks are a simple, inexpensive way to prevent accidental deaths and in no way restrict a person's right to own a gun. Closing the loophole at gun shows will allow law-abiding citizens to get firearms freely, but prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals. These are common-sense, modest proposals. Let us do the will of the American people. Let us not forget Melinda Flowers.