Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Ganske-Dingell bill and truly relish this debate. I truly wish we had more time for it. Today we are going to vote on a Republican sham HMO reform bill which actually leaves patients with less rights than they have under current law. Let me give you an example. The GOP bill will repeal state laws that keep HMOs from giving out your private medical records. Under this Republican proposal, your employer could call for your medical records and your HMO could release your personal medical records without your permission. But the worst thing about this political charade is that the Republican bill does not address the one problem that millions of Americans have asked us to fix, that doctors and patients should make medical decisions, not insurance company bean counters. Under the GOP bill, HMOs will continue to define what is medical necessity and accountants will continue to decide what medical care Americans ought to receive. And if some HMO bureaucrat with no medical training makes a mistake that injures or kills you or a member of your family, you have no legal recourse. The GOP bill says, too bad, and tough luck. This is a sham bill, and that is why the American Medical Association and dozens of other medical groups oppose it, and why the HMO companies support it. It has no protections and no enforcement mechanism. That is why the President has said he will veto it. Let us pass real reform for the American people in this country. That is what they want, that is what they need. Pass the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights. It is the way that we need to address the serious issue of getting back the decisionmaking between doctors and patients, and out of the hands of the HMOs.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, as a cancer survivor, I can tell you that when you are diagnosed with a deadly illness you come face to face with your own mortality. While you are wondering whether you are going to live or you are going to die, you should not have to worry that 2,000 miles away an HMO accountant is making the decisions about what kind of treatment that they are going to provide or what kind of drugs can be provided for your illness. These are the kinds of decisions that ought to be made by doctors and patients, period. The Democrats do have a managed care reform proposal that would ensure the critical health care decisions are made by doctors and patients and not HMO bureaucrats. Yet, the Republican proposals would not provide access to specialty care for cancer patients, provide the necessary needed drugs, prohibit drive-through mastectomies. They have no direct access to OB/GYNs. The last straw is they have no access to State courts if your HMO plan injures you. What they do allow is for those company accountants to continue to value its HMO healthy profits over the healthy patients that are in this country. Let us return medical decisions back to doctors and patients. Let us pass the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, in the 104th Congress, I voted to pass the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which was signed into law. The purpose of the law was to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits brought against companies or stock brokers for fraud. The bill was aimed at stopping lawsuits by investors in high tech companies that didn't make as much money as expected. These lawsuits are so commonplace, that sometimes clients are even brought into the suit after the suit is filed by a legal representative. High-tech companies, of which there are many in Connecticut, have volatile stocks and are particularly susceptible to such suits. These companies are often forced to settle with investors to avoid court costs. Now we need to further refine the law for litigants who try to skirt the law by suing in state instead of federal court. We need one standard for all fifty states. I am pleased to offer my support for the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure and close a frivolous lawsuit loophole.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has finally agreed to bring a managed care reform bill to the floor. Unfortunately the GOP proposal is so watered down that it could have been written by the insurance industry itself. It should be called the Profit Protection Act. Simply put, the Republican plan would allow the insurance companies to continue to place healthy profits over healthy patients. The Republican bill does not end the outrageous practice of drive-through mastectomies. In fact, it leaves medical decisions in the hands of the insurance company accountants instead of doctors. In fact, it does not provide any mechanism to hold the plan accountable when the plan abuse kills or injures someone and when they deny care to someone. Democrats have introduced a real managed care bill to insure that doctors and patients and not insurance company bureaucrats are making those critical health care decisions. It is time we had a scheduled debate on real managed care in this House and that we pass the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights Act.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in strong support of the amendment by my colleague from Connecticut. The arts enrich our culture, our humanity, our communities, and our economy, and I am pleased to vote for this amendment to restore funding to the National Endowment for the Arts. The small investment the government makes in the NEA--its budget is only .01 of our national budget--serves as a catalyst for local, state and private investment in the arts, and bolsters an industry that provides millions of jobs across the nation. We see the results of this investment in Connecticut's thriving arts community. Connecticut's nonprofit arts industry--and it truly is an industry--contributed an estimated $1.3 billion to the state's economy in 1996, and provided jobs for roughly 30,500 people. Just last month, New Haven demonstrated again how the arts can both build our economy and bring our community together. Performers from around the world came to New Haven for the annual International Festival of Arts and Ideas. An estimated 80,000 people traveled to New Haven to visit this summer's festival and enjoyed the artists, dancers, musicians and craftsmen. The arts means travel and tourism, money and jobs for the city of New Haven. The arts build our economy, enrich our culture and feed the minds of adults and children alike. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition the Paxon amendment. The Paxon amendment is an assault. It is an assault on the rights of working men and women in this country. It says that working men and women will be disenfranchised. Let me just say this, that union members, in fact, know where and how their money is being spent. They make the decisions as to what is being done. This would require only labor unions to report on political activities, not the big money interests, the special interests, not the multimillion dollar corporations, only labor unions. The fact of the matter is, is that corporations outspent labor unions 11 to 1 in the 1996 election. If we take a look at today's Washington Post, we will also find out that there was the tobacco industry that provided more subsidized travel than any other industry to the Republican Party. They made their corporate jets available to Republican lawmakers and GOP committees for dozens of flights in the past year. We want to be equitable in this effort. As my colleague from Massachusetts pointed out, Shays-Meehan, in fact, does deal with disclosure. This is an amendment that discourages American workers from participating in the national political process. It is an effort to cut them off. It silences their voices, leaving decent pay, a safe workplace, secure retirements vulnerable to their opponents. It is the American families who will suffer with the result of this amendment. Shays-Meehan does not pose such a threat. It protects the voices of America's working men and women. Vote against the Paxon amendment and support Shays-Meehan.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Families USA released a report about State-managed care reform laws around the country. The report is entitled ``Hit and Miss,'' because, as the report clearly states, ``Unfortunately, for consumers who are in need of protection, State laws are more misses than hits: managed care consumers still cannot count on basic protections.'' This report is only the latest in a growing body of evidence that proves what the American people already know, that we need a national Patients Protection Act. We need to ensure that doctors and patients, and not insurance company bureaucrats, are making the critical health care decisions, that patients have the right to go to the emergency room, that women can gain direct access to an obstetrician or gynecologist, and that health plans are held accountable when they deny patients care. The only plan that ensures these basic protections is the Democratic Patient's Bill of Rights. I urge the Republican leadership, schedule a vote today on the Dingell-Kennedy Patients Protection Act.

Ms. DeLAURO

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides funding for Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. In the network of health insurance plans for Federal employees, there are approximately 1.2 million women of reproductive age who rely on the FEHBP for their medical care. Until November, 1995, Federal employees, just like private-sector workers, could choose a health care plan which covered a full range of reproductive health services, including abortion. Approximately one- third of private fee-for-service plans, 30 percent of HMOs do not provide abortion coverage, two-thirds are fee-for-coverage, and 70 percent of HMOs did. In 1993 and 1994, Congress voted to permit Federal employees to choose a health care plan which covered abortion or to choose one that did not cover abortion. The choice was in the hands of the individual. According to the American Medical Association, funding restrictions, such as the ones in this bill, make it more likely that women will continue a potentially health-threatening pregnancy to term or undergo abortion procedures that will endanger their health. Let me take a moment to address a concern raised by some of my colleagues that this amendment will use taxpayer dollars to subsidize abortion. This simply is not the case. Coverage of abortion services in Federal-held plans does not mean that Government or the taxpayer is subsidizing abortion. Just like private-sector employees negotiating a compensation package, Federal employees agree to work for the Federal Government in return for a salary and a benefits package. That salary and those benefits belong to the employee and not to the Government. The Federal employee, not Government, chooses the health care plan that best fits the person and that person's family's needs. As an employer, the Federal Government makes a contribution to help pay the premium on that health insurance. The rest of the premium is paid by the employee. The payment that the Government makes is part of that Federal employee's compensation package. It belongs to the Federal employee just as much as the paycheck that is deposited in the bank does. We would never claim that the paycheck paid to Federal employees is taxpayer money; and, therefore, no Federal employee should be allowed to spend his or her salary to pay for an abortion. Just like the salary, the benefit package belongs to the employee, not the employer. And employees who do not wish to choose a plan with abortion coverage are not required to. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak at length about individual choice and the value of taking decisions out of the hands of Government and returning the power of choice to individuals. Why, then, do they oppose allowing those who serve the public from making their choice of health care plans? Why do we deny these individuals their right to choose? Mr. Chairman, the antichoice movement in this country has failed to make abortion illegal; therefore, activists are trying to make it more difficult and more dangerous. Singling out abortion for exclusion from health care plans that cover other reproductive health care is harmful to a woman's health. Why not trust the individual rather than mandate a particular point of view of some Members of Congress? This amendment discriminates against women in public service who are denied access to a legal health procedure simply because of who they work for. It has real consequences for real people. Mr. Chairman, I would like to quickly read a letter written by one of those families. I have been a Federal employee for 13 years. My husband and I were elated this summer when I became pregnant. I was scheduled for a sonogram at 14 weeks. My husband, mother and sister accompanied me to the ultrasound waiting room because seeing this baby was a big event. The radiologist detected abnormalities and recommended that only my husband be allowed to see the sonogram. The radiologist termed it severe hydrocephalus. We saw an empty skull, termed it incompatible with life. The doctors I saw agreed there was no hope for the fetus, recommended terminating as soon as possible. We were devastated. To compound the tragedy came the news that companies insuring Federal workers are prohibited from covering abortions. In the end we paid a very high fee to have the abortion because the fetal anomaly made the procedure more complicated. My husband and I question whether Congress was implying we were immoral for aborting this fetus in hoping to get pregnant with a healthy child. Our decision was not wanton or frivolous. It was heartbreaking. My Chairman, talk about giving individuals choices, I urge my colleagues to please give our public servants back this choice. I urge them to support this amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a number of arguments in this debate today. I would just like to briefly remind my colleagues of a few points. If the language in the bill is allowed to remain, hard-working public servants will be unable to choose health insurance which covers legal, doctor-recommended abortions which are necessary to preserve a woman's health. If this amendment passes, no health plan will be required to offer abortion coverage, no one, no one will be required to choose a health plan which covers abortion. It will be an individual decision. This is not a question of taxpayer money being used to subsidize abortion. That is not the issue here. The health insurance premiums are earned by the employees of our government every single bit as much as their paycheck. Those premiums, just like the paycheck, belong to the employee, not to the Government and not to the taxpayer. The American Medical Association tells us that making it more difficult, more expensive for women to access needed abortion leads to more health complications for mothers. This is a question of allowing women to choose a health insurance plan which covers an important aspect of women's health. Under the language in the bill, health insurance plans are not permitted to cover an abortion when the doctor tells the patient that an abortion is needed to preserve the mother's health. This is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues, do not impose your own particular point of view on these good, hard-working public servants. Allow these women to choose for themselves. Vote to strike this provision and preserve the right of these women to choose. One final point, this is a bipartisan amendment. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for participating in this effort.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a comment to my colleague from Kansas. The Federal Government pays Federal employees' salaries, as well as provides the opportunity for a benefit package. They pay our salary, they pay benefit packages. That is all taxpayer dollars. We often get into that in debate, about ``taxpayer dollars.'' The fact of the matter is, I do not know that we are assuming that what we would intend to do here is to dictate to people what they could do with their own salaries. That is taxpayer money, as well as taxpayer dollars that may be involved in benefits packages. The gentleman helped me to make my point, which is you negotiate a package, salary and benefits, and we are now putting ourselves in the position of dictating what people do with their benefits. Not only that, it is not saying that. What we are only saying here is allow the service to be offered in a benefits package. Some offer it, some do not. My colleague, I know we have had these commentaries over a long period of time, would say to those of us on this side of the aisle, give people the choice. Allow them to select the schools they want their kids to go to, allow them to do what they need to do in their own lives. The Federal Government should stay out of their lives in choice. They have a range of health packages. They can then make an individual selection, not based on what you think, not based on what I think, but what, in fact, meets the needs of themselves and of their families. That is essentially what we are talking about here. Allow Federal workers to have that choice. Do not distinguish their benefits from their salary.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, yes, it is.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last week I met with a constituent of mine, Barbara Salinger, from New Haven, Connecticut. Barbara's husband passed away from colon cancer shortly after their HMO forced him out of the hospital, only days after his surgery. Barbara fought to get him readmitted when he came down with a fever and started vomiting the next day, but he died shortly thereafter. Under the Democratic Patient's Protection Act, HMOs will be held accountable when they deny patients like Mr. Salinger the care that they need. Meanwhile, Republicans have created a sham proposal that has no enforcement mechanism. The GOP bill protects the health insurance companies, not the health of average Americans. There is only one bill that holds the managed care plans responsible for denying care with real, reliable, and enforceable remedies. The Republican leadership should abandon their sham proposal and respond to what the American people are very concerned about. They want to be able to have good health care coverage, to not be denied, to make sure that their medical decisions are being made by themselves and by their doctors, not by insurance company bureaucrats.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the VA HUD appropriations bill contains bipartisan legislation that I introduced with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), two of this Congress' experts on fire safety. It would direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to reinstate fire standards which governed children's sleepwear, kept our children, kept our kids, safe for more than 25 years. A coalition of health and safety groups, including the American Burn Association, the National Fire Protection Association, the Coalition for American Trauma Care, the American College of Surgeons, the American Public Health Association, the Emergency Nurses Association, all of them support the return to the previous fire safety standards because they know how important it is to protect our children from devastating burn injuries. During the committee consideration of the bill, the chairman of the committee agreed and promised to ensure that this legislation would be protected in this bill, that our kids would be protected. Unfortunately, unfortunately, the Republican leadership in this House broke that agreement made by one of their own committee chairs. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this rule because it breaks that agreement which has protected an amendment to save children in this country from fire burns and from death. For 25 years children's sleepwear was held to a higher standards of flammability than other kinds of clothing. It made it so that they would self-extinguish after exposure to a small flame. Manufacturers were required to test every part of the garments, the seams, and trim and everything else, in terms of ensuring that high standard for our kids' safety. The National Fire Protection Agency estimates that there would have been 10 times more deaths associated with children's sleepwear without this standard. And when the Consumer Product Safety Commission eliminated those, a coalition of groups came together. People in the House came together to say let us reinstate those regulations so that our kids are safe. We had this piece of legislation, we agreed on this piece of legislation, and the Republican leadership in this House says, no, let us leave our kids unprotected and not make sure that this bill cannot be struck down in this effort. Where are we? Who are we committed to? Are we committed to special interests around this country, or are we committed to kids and to families in this country? This is a simple piece of legislation. It requires no money. It just says let us have the will to make sure our kids are safe and reinstate those regulations as it has to do with their sleepwear. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule, and my colleagues should vote against it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues the story of one of my constituents, Sharon Crossley, from Wallingford, Connecticut. Last November Sharon was diagnosed with breast cancer. The day before her surgery her HMO canceled the procedure because it was scheduled for the wrong hospital. While Sharon was waiting to get on another doctor's schedule, precious days were passing by. As a cancer survivor, I can tell the Members how frightening the diagnosis is and how essential it is to get quick medical attention. Every day of delay is another day that the cancer could be spreading through your body, threatening vital organs. Sharon Crossley was one of the lucky ones. She called our office. We were able to convince her HMO to help her get emergency surgery scheduled immediately. But patients should not have to take that kind of a risk that Sharon had to take. The American people deserve to have rights in the health care system. That is why we need to pass legislation today holding managed care plans responsible for the denial of care with real, reliable, and enforcible remedies.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. Striking the bill's provisions providing $1.6 billion in emergency funding for the year 2000 computer crisis is truly a very dangerous move. Unless corrected on time, the year 2000 date change will cause malfunctions or the total shutdown of the Pentagon's computer network, with devastating consequences. The communications system linking United States forces together across the globe so that they can respond to threats to our security at any time that is at risk. The basic navigational system used by U.S. military and civilians around the world involved in commercial trade and travel are jeopardized. The payroll system that ensures that millions of soldiers and military retirees receive compensation for the sacrifices that they have made to protect our freedom, these are threatened. The GAO reports said that at the current rate it will take 3\1/2\ years for the Pentagon to correct its year 2000 problems. But there are only 18 months until the first day of the year 2000. We need to speed up the progress. This should not be a political issue. Once again, my Republican colleagues do not seem to get the message. Once again, they play politics with a deadly serious issue. To appease the right wing of their party, they are truly willing to compromise. Compromise on what? The future safety of the entire Nation. Stop the games. Protect our Nation. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I received a letter from a woman in Iowa. She was kicked out of the hospital less than 24 hours after undergoing breast cancer surgery, only to go home in pain and to develop painful infections. She remarked in her letter how her family dog broke his leg and they took him to the vet. The veterinarian kept the dog for four days. She writes, and I quote, ``A dog receives better health care than a woman.'' She is right, and it is a disgrace. My bill to provide breast cancer patients with 48 hours in the hospital has been included in the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights. But the Republican leadership refuses to bring this bill to the floor of the House for a vote. The GOP seems to be more concerned with protecting the profits of the health insurance industry than protecting the quality of health care for American families. Our pets should not be getting better health care than our families. It is time to pass the Patients' Bill of Rights.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I stand before my colleagues as a cancer survivor to strongly oppose this amendment. This amendment would not just block access and research to reproductive health drugs, although that in itself is enough reason to vote against it. In an attempt to promote an anti-choice agenda, proponents of this amendment are risking the lives of millions of Americans, because this amendment would block the development of drugs that cure cancer and other kinds of medical treatment because some of those drugs can cause miscarriage, also known as spontaneous abortion. Mr. Chairman, I am an ovarian cancer survivor. Millions of Americans suffer from cancer every year. Anyone who has undergone chemotherapy sessions in a desperate attempt to kill the cancer cells before they kill them knows the warnings given by the doctor. If a woman is pregnant, chemotherapy could endanger the pregnancy and induce miscarriage. I was fortunate that those circumstances did not apply to me. But if we pass this amendment, the development of new lifesaving drugs would be blocked. If cancer patients wait while researchers draw closer and closer to a cure for cancer, this amendment would close the door in their faces. No more hope. No chance of developing a drug that could save their lives. When I received my cancer diagnosis, it felt as if the world had stopped. The mind just cannot comprehend what is happening. And once it does sink in, all one thinks about is how am I going to beat this? What can I do to get my life back? Let us make sure that patients who are faced with this difficult moment have access to the best science that is available; not science that is compromised by politics. This amendment is a slap in the face to the women of America. It is a slap in the face to anyone who has survived a cancer diagnosis. It is a slap in the face to anyone who is fighting now to beat this deadly disease. Mr. Chairman, I urge everyone in this House who cares about improving the health of Americans and the life of Americans to vote against this very dangerous amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Representative Skeen and Representative Kaptur for all of their hard work. I know it has been difficult to balance the many important priorities that this bill must fund, especially given the funding constraints that Congress faces. I am, however, very concerned that we could not do more to support vital programs that improve the day-to-day-lives of American families. I am concerned that the real and urgent needs of this country--to reduce smoking among young people, to protect the safety of our food, and to ensure high-quality nutrition for mothers and their children-- could not receive the full attention that they deserve. One of the most serious issues before this nation is tobacco use among America's youth. For years, the tobacco industry deliberately targeted children. Now, an astounding 4.5 million 12-17 year-olds smoke. Three thousand young people under the age of 18 become regular smokers each day. And when children this young take up smoking, they do not shake the habit easily. Almost 90 percent of adult smokers began by age 18. This year, the President requested a $100 million increase to expand FDA enforcement of laws prohibiting tobacco sales to minors and to expand the FDA's national public education campaign to get the word out to Americans across the country that these laws are being enforced. Sadly, this bill does not provide this important investment. I also am disappointed that, while this bill includes an additional $15 million over current spending levels for the President's food safety initiative, additional resources are not available for both the FDA and USDA to ensure the safety of our food supply. Americans need to be able to sit down together at the table and know that everything possible has been done to ensure that their meals are free from contamination. But each year, an estimated 9,000 Americans die, and another 5 million get sick, from food-borne pathogens. If we are truly going to protect the health of American families, we must commit greater resources to assure the safety of their food and produce. Americans deserve better safeguards, stronger enforcement, and greater research and understanding of how our food supply becomes contaminated. Furthermore, I am disappointed that the WIC program could not be funded to reach more mothers and their children. WIC currently guarantees that 7.4 million young women and their children receive adequate nutrition and health advice--preventing future illnesses and other health problems in their lives. WIC dollars are excellent long-term investments in America's future. Each dollar spent on WIC yields more than three dollars in savings to the government through reduced spending on programs such as Medicaid. I am pleased that this bill requires WIC to streamline its program and eliminate waste, providing more services to more deserving people, yielding higher returns on the dollar. Thank you again Representative Skeen and Representative Kaptur for crafting this bill under such difficult funding restrictions. But, I must emphasize that, as members of Congress, it is our responsibility to invest in programs that ensure the long-term safety and security of Americans and their families. The Tobacco Initiative, WIC and the Food Safety Initiative do exactly that. They deserve our commitment to the highest levels possible.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. In a sweatshop. It was because of the union movement, there are still problems, there are still sweatshops. We do not like to think about that, but that is the case. But we broke the back of that kind of work for people in this country and in this instance, in these industries, particularly for women, working for two pennies a collar or for 50 cents for making a whole dress and just slave labor. That is the guts of this. I want to mention, you mentioned New Haven, Connecticut because we talk about what has happened in the past. We want to talk about modern day organizing and what we are about. There was a recent, real big victory in New Haven, the labor movement, in organizing at the new Omni, the New Haven Omni hotel just this past April. The 230 employees, they won the right to openly choose their own union through a card check, union cards signed by a majority of the employees. It was a real victory over the longstanding insistence of the corporation for a secret ballot. How did this occur in essence? It is, again, the new organizing, through community efforts, having local government, the Federal Government. I was proud to work with the union folks, civil rights groups, clergy, academics, students who worked together. They had hearings. They met with hotel managers. They threatened boycotts. But more than that, they participated in a dialogue. It was a communitywide dialogue about why we needed for local 217 to be able to sign these cards to determine whether or not there would be a union there. That is the kind of engagement we need today. That is what is going on. And as you have said so often, we should not be afraid, as public servants, as public officials, to engage in this process, because it is not going to be something that is happening in isolation over here, where no one is paying attention, because the movement today, the union movement today is as relevant to people's lives for all the reasons that you gave and our colleague from California gave and so that it has got to be alive. It has got to be vibrant, and it has to be strong. It is only through the engagement of those of us who oftentimes have a microphone and can serve with others that we can help to better the livelihood of those in our society today who, in fact, have seen their wages either stay the same or to go down over the last couple of decades. When we have seen the top of the scale, the CEOs, seeing their salaries increase and their stock options increase and people laid off in this country. There are lots of other Members who want to engage in this effort. I am just truly proud to join here today, and it should not be only June 24. We ought to be speaking out. We ought to be organizing and helping to make sure that we have people with decent living wages better than that and that they have the kinds of workplace conditions that they are entitled to for their daily labor.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am just delighted to be a part of this effort tonight to join with my colleagues and to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) for organizing this special order and particularly the conversation, the dialogue between yourself and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) in a reminder about the early history of the labor movement, what it has created and your words, it created the middle class. It created the place where the bulk of this country is coming from, the people who are the backbone of the United States. And what it accomplished in terms of safety in the workplace, fair and decent wages, the benefits that people enjoy today and oftentimes we forget, we forget what it was like, and we take so much for granted. That is why the notion of a June 24 and Americans honoring working men and women and helping others to remember and to organize and to get out there to help people who are trying to take some difficult first steps in trying to, one, hold on to what we have and to create new and better opportunities for working men and women in the country through unions, through a wonderful institution, the heart and soul of what the United States is about. It is the thought of workers joining together to look at improving their living standards, their communities, their companies and making them better places. Oftentimes, as I said, we forget that, when we are together and we argue and fight, what a tremendous balancing force against runaway corporate power in this country and, again, one of your terms, economic justice. That is what the fight, that is what it is all about.

Ms. DeLAURO. My mother worked in a sweatshop.