Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand before you today to honor a citizen of Connecticut who has graced the New Haven area and the world with his architectural achievements. Over his long and illustrious career, Cesar Pelli has literally changed the landscape of our cities and our nation with his socially responsive and uplifting designs. Anyone who has flown into the new terminal designed by Cesar Pelli for the Washington National Airport can appreciate the genius of Pelli's designs: his belief that each building should be shaped by its location and purpose; his sense of space, light and harmony; and his commitment to creating gracious, accessible buildings which facilitate public use, enjoyment, and interaction. Each of Pelli's designs complements and emerges from the existing cityscape, yet transcends and elevates the surrounding structures. His architectural projects across the world serve diverse purposes and peoples, including the Pacific Design Center in Los Angeles, the United States Embassy in Japan, the Commons of Columbus in Columbus, Indiana, the New York World Financial Center and Winter Garden, the More and Stiles Colleges at Yale University, the International Finance Center under construction in Hong Kong, and the renovation of the New York City Museum of Modern Art. New Haven has been fortunate to have Cesar Pelli call it home since 1977, when he became the Dean of the Yale University School of Architecture. It is fitting that tonight in New Haven, Mr. Pelli is being honored at Casa Otonal, the residential community for the elderly whose inner city campus of workshops, residences, and on-site services and intergenerational programs, was designed by Cesar Pelli twenty-two years ago. Pelli's campus fosters a sense of community among residents and the surrounding inner city neighborhood, reaffirming Casa Otonal's mission and enhancing its success. It is this commitment to city landscape and life which has earned Mr. Pelli more than 100 awards for design excellence, including the American Institute of Architects 1995 Gold Medal for a lifetime of distinguished achievement and outstanding contributions. Cesar Pelli, we thank you for your commitment and contribution to our cities and to urban life. It is my great honor and privilege to join with the residents and staff of Casa Otonal, and with your family and friends, to pay tribute to your remarkable achievements.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and all of my colleagues who in fact never lost faith in achieving comprehensive campaign finance reform. Most of all, I commend the citizens of this country, who have demanded meaningful changes to clean up our national campaign system. Americans want fundamental change across the country. They want meaningful limits on out-of-control money in politics, and they want those changes now. For years, the Republican leadership stalled and they still are. It is hard for me to listen to the words of the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) who just spoke a few minutes ago, who says there is nothing wrong with the system, that the system is working, truly mind boggling. But the Republican leadership has stalled, made phony deals and promises, strong-armed real reformers in their own party off of a discharge petition. They introduced a hodgepodge of bills that the House had rejected. They brought to the floor an amendment that they did not believe in and even its sponsor voted against. They snowballed us with amendments in debate in the wee hours of the night. But we were never discouraged. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) were never discouraged. The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) was never discouraged. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) was never discouraged. We fought for real reform. We kept the Republican leadership's feet to the fire. We forced them to listen to the voices of the American public, not powerful special interests and their large campaign contributions. With the help of people across this country who called for real reform of our campaign system, we prevailed. Republican tactics failed to kill campaign finance reform and on Monday, we passed Meehan-Shays, we passed genuine reform. It banned soft money. It reins in exploitation of issue ads and brings elections back home to the American people. This vote is a victory for campaign finance reform. It is a victory for the American people. I want to pay particular thanks to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for their groundbreaking efforts on this issue. They fought this battle long and hard. To all we say thank you. But we have to remain vigilant. We must, in the long run, support Shays-Meehan for real campaign finance reform.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. We should be creating academic opportunities for all students, and not just a handful. We do that by improving our public schools, not by undermining them. Mr. Chairman, my mother worked in a sweatshop earning 2 cents for each collar that she stitched. She never dreamed that one day her daughter would serve in the House of Representatives. That was possible because education is the great equalizer in this Nation. No one would deny that our public school system needs help, but I challenge my Republican colleagues, do they truly want to improve educational opportunities for children in the District? If the answer is yes, then reduce class sizes so teachers can give the attention and discipline to kids that they need; put computers in the classrooms, so students can learn the skills of the 21st century; and enact high standards, and hold students and schools accountable. Do not take funds from public schools and give them to private schools. Do not provide vouchers to just 2,000 D.C. students, and abandon 76,000 students who remain in our public schools. Vouchers will not solve the problems in our public schools, they will create new ones. Let us defeat this amendment and help our public schools.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the debate over the census should be about how to get a fair and an accurate count in the year 2000. We need to make sure that everyone counts in this country, everyone. The Census Bureau consulted the experts at the National Academy of Sciences, who recommended a plan to use the latest scientific methods to supplement the traditional head count. It would also save taxpayers millions of dollars. A more accurate, less costly census, that is the plan that the Democrats support. But the Republicans in this body want to overrule the experts. That is a bad idea. The census is too important to fall victim to partisan politics. The census data directly affects decisions made on funding for education, veterans services, public health care, the environment and housing. In America, every family should count. Every child should count. Every senior should count. Every veteran should count. Support a fair and an accurate census. Support the Mollohan amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 5 minutes.

Ms. DeLAURO. Yes, I am.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to the English amendment. Three years ago when campaign finance reformers started out to change the American election system, our goal was to try to increase the number of participants in the political process and to take elections out of the hands of the big-money special interests. This amendment would, in fact, do just the opposite. It would rob Americans of an essential tool in leveling the political playing field. It effectively prevents bundling, which lets ordinary Americans with limited resources pool their funds together into a single contribution and put themselves on equal footing with the more well-heeled political interests. It also would allow corporate officers to host campaign functions for candidates and collect checks. I give you an example of women in politics. Today, thanks to coordinated grassroots efforts, over 45,000 members of EMILY'S List, who on average have contributed less than $100 per candidate, they had an opportunity to triple the number of women who serve in this body. There is EMILY'S list on the Democratic side of the aisle. There is a group called Wish List on the Republican side of the aisle which, in fact, is looking at how we, in fact, change the face of the Congress and bring new people into the process and bring women, women of color into the process in this body. That has been accomplished by these groups. The ability to pool political donations helps put average Americans on equal footing with the wealthiest of interests. This benefits everyone, regardless of what side of the political spectrum we may fall, self-employed men and women who sell Amway products, local environmentalists who participate in the League of Conservation Voters. I mentioned Wish List, the National Jewish Democratic Council, Council for a Livable World. The English amendment cripples such organizations. It prevents ordinary voters from uniting together as significant political forces. What we want to do is to get more people in the process, not less people. The English amendment would cripple that process. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment truly does cripple organizations, organizations that mobilize thousands of men and women behind issues that they care about. It prevents average people from getting together as a political force. Again, this benefits all sides of the spectrum. We are not talking about narrowly defining this effort. Why we want to, instead of expanding the opportunity for people to participate, to narrow these efforts, and ``do in,'' if you will, the ability in terms of full disclosure. What we need to do, as my colleagues have said, is we need to ban the soft money, and bring participation in the political process back home to the American people.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan amendment because it restores full funding for a fair and an accurate Year 2000 census. The goal is to count 100 percent of the people. That is what we are talking about here on our side of the aisle, and let me just tell my colleagues what census data does: It determines the distributions of 170 billion Federal dollars every single year. The dollars go to basic programs: Social Security, Medicare, better roads, child care for low-income families and middle- income families, school lunches. An accurate census will ensure sufficient funds to protect the well-being of American families, to protect child care, healthy meals for kids and security for our seniors in their golden years. This should not be a political issue, but my Republican colleagues do not seem to get the message. Instead, they declare war against accuracy. These tactics are not surprising. They have played politics with campaign finance, with tobacco, with health care and now with the census. Stop the political games. Put families in this country first. Vote for a fair and accurate census with a hundred percent of the people counted in this country.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting to note that we just passed a major health reform bill in this body, managed care reform. The single biggest issue on the minds of the American people in this country and we did it without a hearing. Without one single hearing. The majority party would not allow any hearings on a major health care reform bill in this body. This is an issue that has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not we have hearings. I will tell my colleagues what it has to do with, and I will quote, not my comments, but I will quote from Molly Ivins on June 27. This is a quote about the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla): ``Bonilla will move to strike DeLauro's amendment today. He told The Washington Post last week, 'I don't have a huge cotton constituency in my district, but my State does,' and added that the Texas drought has already taken a toll on cotton farmers. `They came to me and explained this would place severe restrictions on what they could produce.' ``Excuse me--did I just hear someone say that we could bail out the cotton farmers by letting more little kids get burned to death every year?''

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, let me make another point about the issue of hearings. The fact of the matter is when we hold hearings, we bring in new information, new ideas, in a process that goes before the committee to listen to. This is a set of regulations that has been on the books for the last 25 years. It has worked. These standards have worked. Not according to Democrats or Republicans or the political people, but in fact according to the medical community, to fire marshals, to fire chiefs, people who work in burn units all over this country have banned together to say it is wrong to eliminate these standards. Why are we not listening?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which will protect America's children from burn injuries and from death. I feel confident that every Member of this body will support it. This amendment would prohibit the Consumer Product Safety Commission from using any of its resources to promulgate or implement weakened fire and safety standards for children's sleepwear. For more than two decades children's sleepwear was held to a more stringent standard of fire safety than any other type of clothing. Kids' pajamas needed to self-extinguish after exposure to a small open flame. Manufacturers were required to test every part of the garment's fabrics, seams, and the trim, to ensure that it met this high standard of safety. Why this strict standard of safety? Because Americans understood the importance of protecting their children from the horrific burns that can come from a fire accident. I saw a demonstration of in my home State of Connecticut of just how fast a pair of pajamas that are not treated to reduce flammability can go up in flames. It was horrifying and it was frightening. The strict standard of fire safety worked. Fire burns and deaths relating to children's sleepwear went down to nearly zero. In fact, the National Fire Protection Agency estimates that without this safety standard, there would have been ten times as many deaths associated with children's sleepwear. The standard also brought about a substantial decrease in the number of burn injuries. That is why I was shocked to learn that the Consumer Product Safety Commission, an agency for which I have the utmost respect, had voted to turn its back on that successful record and to weaken the fire safety standards for children's sleepwear. The current standards allow all sleepwear for infants nine months or younger and tightfitting sleepwear in children's sizes up to 14 to be exempt from flammability standards so that they can be made from untreated cotton and cotton blends. These types of clothes can easily ignite from a stove or other types of flames. Tight-fitting clothes made with flame resistent material are the safest choice for children. Nonflame-resistent materials like untreated cotton and cotton blends ignite at a lower temperature than fabrics such as polyester. The flames spread rapidly, and they tend to spread up towards the child's face. The reasoning behind the new rules is that if a garment is tight, it is more difficult for flames to spread. Parents do not buy clothes that are tight. We have all bought clothes for new babies. We buy them for our kids and we buy them for our friend's kids, and they look beautiful. They are very, very pretty. We think how cute it is, and we buy clothes that are big so a child grows into them. But the combination of nonflame resistance and large sizes is lethal to our kids. It is important to note that the chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission voted against changing the standards, and she said, ``Available injury and death data demonstrates to me that the sleepwear standards are working. I am unable to agree to an exemption that could leave these infants more vulnerable to injury or to death.'' I have been working with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rob Andrews) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Curt Weldon), two of this body's most eminent experts on fire safety, to reinstate the original fair safety standards to protect our children from burns and from death. We are backed by a large coalition of fire safety organizations, medical organizations, public health groups, who are dedicated to protecting our children and reinstating this standard. Let me just quote from one member of that coalition, Andrew McGuire, executive director of the Trauma Foundation at San Francisco General Hospital, who was burned when his pajamas caught fire in 1952, on his 7th birthday. He was instrumental in lobbying for the passage of the original standard. This is what he says, that the children's sleepwear fire safety standard has been ``a truly successful 'vaccine' that has protected thousands of children from serious burns over the past 25 years. No one in America would consider reducing the use of the vaccine for polio. Why would the CPSC relax such a life-saving vaccine for burns?'' Andrew McGuire is right, we do not want to wait for the number of fire burns and deaths to rise before we take action to protect our children. One death is too many. One child living with a disfigurement left from a burn is too many. This is a life or death issue for our children. This is a bipartisan effort. We have the responsibility to protect our children's health and safety. It does not belong to one party or another. We all hold that responsibility. I urge my colleagues to stand behind our Nation's children and support this amendment.

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

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I insert the following for the Record. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission [Statement of Chairman Ann Brown, August 3, 1994] children's sleepwear I voted today to terminate the Commission's rulemaking proceeding to amend the Standards for the Flammability of Children's Sleepwear in sizes 0-6x and 7-14. I also voted to terminate the stay of enforcement after providing firms an adequate lead time to bring their sleepwear garments into compliance with the flammability standards. The proposal approved by the Commission today would exempt so-called tight-fitting sleepwear garments from the flammability standards, and sleepwear garments for infants under one year of age. In considering whether to support continuing the rulemaking proceeding, I have made it clear that my primary concern is that the Commission take no action that would reduce the level of safety currently provided by the children's sleepwear standards. I am unable to support changing the sleepwear standards unless I can make the statutory findings that the changes would not present an unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire leading to death or personal injury, or significant property damage. Since I am not convinced by the evidence currently available that I can make this finding, I cannot vote to support the proposed amendments. I am concerned that the available data fail to support the conclusion that exempting tight fitting garments from the regulation will not decrease safety. Available injury and death data demonstrate to me that the sleepwear standards are working. Although incident data was not kept on a statistical basis before issuance of the sleepwear standards in 1972 (sizes 0-6x) and 1975 (sizes 7-14), it is clear that a significant number of burn injuries and deaths associated with children's sleepwear did occur. Over the years, the actual numbers of injuries and deaths associated with sleepwear injuries and deaths appear to have declined dramatically. Although there is speculation that this decline may be based on such things as the reduced number of persons smoking and safer appliance such as space heaters and ranges, it is merely speculation. It is just as likely that the injuries and deaths have declined because the sleepwear standards are working. I recognize that there is a consumer preference for cotton children's sleepwear garments especially in infant sizes, and that the Commission staff has encountered difficulty in enforcing the sleepwear standards because of this consumer preference. I have taken this into account in reaching my decision. I understand and am sympathetic to these concerns. I do not disagree with the staff's conclusion that tight- fitting cotton garments present less of a hazard than loose- fitting cotton garments. I am skeptical, however, of the staff's conclusion that if the standard is amended, parents will switch from loose-fitting cotton garments (e.g. t- shirts) to exempt tight-fitting sleepwear. There is no factual evidence of consumer demand for tight-fitting sleepwear. There is no factual evidence that consumers would switch from loose-fitting noncomplying garments to exempted tight-fitting garments. It is at least as likely that the purchase of tight-fitting garments will be at the expense of garments that meet the children's sleepwear flammability standards. If so, the level of safety afforded children may well be reduced. Further, even if skin tight garments could reduce burn injuries, I am concerned that it is not practical to think that consumers will actually sleep in them. We may well find that consumers purchase tight-fitting garments in larger sizes to increase comfort, thereby obviating any safety benefit staff has indicated might be achieved with tight-fitting garments. Regarding the proposed exemption for sleepwear for infants less than six months of age, existing evidence shows that infants at this tender age are exposed to ignition sources. The exemption would cover at least 20% of sleepwear garments in sizes 0-14. I am unable to agree to an exemption that could leave these infants more vulnerable to injury or death.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). (Mr. SCOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Riggs Amendment, which is a unacceptable intrusion into local affairs. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle constantly preach to us about government intrusion into local affairs. According to them, government has no place in education. No place in protecting our environment. No place in protecting the safety of American workers. But when it suits their purpose, it suddenly becomes acceptable to dictate how a city should run its affairs. San Francisco has been a model for the nation in providing benefits for domestic partners. This is a policy determined by San Francisco's government. This is a policy supported by San Francisco's citizens. This is a policy meant to end discrimination and ensure equality under the law. This amendment would single out the city of San Francisco for punishment because it enacted a policy that the Congressional Majority just doesn't like. Requiring any city to go against its own ordinance in order to use federal funds is simply unacceptable. Congress has no place dictating local affairs to this extent. That's why this amendment is opposed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which called it an ``unwarranted intrusion into local decision making.'' I urge my colleagues to stand up for local decision making and for civil rights and oppose this amendment. Mr. NADLER, Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment flies in the face of the ideals that many of its proponents purport to hold dear. In debates after debate, my colleagues from the other side of the aisle warn darkly of the dangers of intruding into the affairs of State and local governments. Is that not exactly the effect of this amendment? Some may say that those who have espoused the belief that State and local governments deserve autonomy would be committing a gross act of hypocrisy if they were to support this amendment. Beyond that fact, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because it is outrageously mean-spirited. This amendment is a blatant effort to deny gay men and lesbians, who live as domestic partners, health benefits through their partners' employment. If this amendment were to become law, San Francisco and other cities fearing government intervention would be forced to choose between ensuring their domestic partners receive appropriate health care benefits or, ensuring that funding is available to assist those in need of adequate housing. This is nothing short of blackmail. By punishing localities that set policies that help ensure equal rights in health care benefits, thousands would be hurt through the loss of Federal housing dollars. In the past few weeks, we have hear much from some Members from the other side of the aisle about their views on homosexuality. Now, these appalling statements are being put into action through attempts, such as this amendment, to legislate away rights that have been hard fought and won fair and square. This level of bigotry must not be tolerated in this body. We must not stand by and allow such a mean-spirited and dangerous amendment to prevail. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the motion which will be offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) a little bit later in the evening. Mr. Chairman, in 1994 the Consumer Product Safety Commission decided to grant part of a petition by State fire marshals, State fire marshals who have been asking the CPSC to develop a safety standard for upholstered furniture to address the problems of fires started from small open flames such as lighters, matches and candles. Every year 200 people are killed and 600 injured unnecessarily by fires which start on upholstered couches and chairs. Most of the fires start when children play with lighters and matches, and every year 40 children under age 5 die in fires started by burning upholstered furniture. These fires, Mr. Chairman, cost an estimated $1 billion and are completely avoidable. These fires could be avoided by using fire- retardant chemicals to reduce the flammability of upholstered furniture. The CPSC has been working for the past 4 years to conduct tests and evaluate all of the issues relating to the proposed standard to reduce fires, but the upholstered furniture industry does not want this standard to move forward, so in subcommittee an amendment was added to tie the CPSC up in red tape and paperwork and delay the development of these standards. Mr. Chairman, the study required in this bill is unnecessary, it is a stall tactic, and the CPSC estimates that it would take more than 5 years and cost nearly a million dollars to do this unnecessary study. In the meantime more fires will occur putting peoples' lives in danger. Each year that goes by before the standard is put in place 200 people die, each year 600 people are injured unnecessarily, and each year that goes by nearly $1 billion in damages and social costs from these preventable fires occur. Each year that goes by 40 more children under age five will die from fires and burns. Will we continue to sacrifice the lives of our children and firemen? Will we pander to the upholstered furniture industry to stop the CPSC from taking steps to prevent these completely avoidable fires? No. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues tonight to pay tribute to Officer J.J. Chestnut and Special Agent Gibson for their bravery in last week's tragic shooting. Those of us who work in the United States Capitol know the dedication of all of the U.S. Capitol Police. We see them each and every day in the halls, by the doors, by the parking garages. They are our friends, and indeed, they are our protectors. The U.S. Capitol is truly the people's House. It is among the most open and accessible in the world. The Capitol Police make that possible, while protecting the safety of those who work and who visit here. They do not just protect the visitors who come here every day, or the Members of the Congress, or our staffs. They protect the ideal of freedom that our Nation was founded upon. We all know that if not for their bravery and swift reaction, many more innocent lives would have been lost. J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson truly made the ultimate sacrifice, and we will never forget them for what they have done. My heart goes out to the Chestnut and Gibson families as they struggle to come to terms with this terrible loss. Words are often meaningless at this time, but I know that we all hope that they know that they are in our hearts and our prayers during this difficult time. I also wanted to extend my sympathies to the entire U.S. Capitol Police Force, officers who have been carrying on their duties while carrying a huge burden of grief. We thank them for everything that they do. They are all heroes. On a personal note, I would just like to say that several Members, including myself, were in the press gallery at the time of the incident. We were in the Capitol, and the Capitol Police came in to secure our safety and to escort us to safety. I say thank you to those officers who came in to secure our safety. I say thank you, and my family says thank you.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Ganske-Dingell bill and in opposition of the Republican bill. For the last 2 years, I have been working on legislation to end the practice of drive-through mastectomies. The bill simply ensures that breast cancer patients are allowed 48 hours in the hospital to recover from this physically and emotionally devastating surgery. It does not seem like much to ask, and yet the Republican leadership has refused to schedule hearings on this important legislation. The Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights ends the practice of drive- through mastectomies. The House Republican leadership bill ignores this problem. What is worse, their legislation will actually strip away existing State protections. My State of Connecticut has led the fight to end outpatient mastectomies. The Connecticut legislature has already acted to outlaw this outrageous practice. But the Republican bill would repeal those hard-fought patient protections. The Republican bill will not put medical decisions back in the hands of doctors and patients. It makes current problems worse. It eliminates consumer safeguards. In the case of breast cancer patients, this bill is a slap in the face.