Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. The opposite pole is if babies do have trusting and reliable relationships, and that is with parents, grandparents, and caregivers, because we know today that men and women are in the workplace. Families cannot afford to stay home all of the time with their children. So we want to make sure that when they have day care, that needs to be sound and solid, where parents can trust the quality of that day care, the quality of the individuals who are providing that care. The one thing that really, excuse me, just blows my mind is that while babies have an enormous capacity to learn, as I understand it, if it is not used, it is not that you can draw on the reserve and use it at another time. It goes away. It is gone. It loses the ability. They have studies in animals, for instance, that if their eyes are covered right after birth, the brain then loses the ability to deal with visual information. So just to sum that up, with the brain, you either use it or you lose it. That is why, given the information, what we do not want to do with this information is put it on a shelf.

Ms. DeLAURO. It is, because you are not using, and again, I am not a scientist, but you are not using the part of the brain that differentiates those sounds. So children can learn languages, they learn languages easier at a much earlier age. Again, if we think about ourselves, or if we had that experience or learned a language in high school or earlier, if you had that experience at home, you can draw on both pieces. My colleague, the gentleman from Maine, said if we miss this opportunity to provide children who are from the zero to 3, some places have programs that are from zero to 6, and you get that interaction with parents and caregivers, and you read to children, and you may think it is not coming through, but it is in many ways. I think if we do not take advantage of this opportunity we are not doing our jobs. We are not doing the job we were sent here to do.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for a second, we all represent different areas and different parts of the country, whether they are urban or suburban or rural areas. I keep going back to the fact that we have been privy to some of the most recent, the most up-to-date, the most scientific data about how we can make the biggest impact on our children. Startling data. We cannot have it more clearly, as my colleague from Massachusetts pointed out earlier. This is it. We have this period of time when we can make the biggest impact for this child's future. And all that research is wonderful, again, wherever we live, but if it does not spur us to action, the kind of action that we are talking about, and the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from North Carolina have spoken about, if we do not act on that, then, one, I think we are derelict in our responsibility, and I think that we really are shortchanging our kids. Just two or three statistics that I think are important to note which then trigger off a number of things that say, what are the responses? What ought to be the responses? One-third of victims of child abuse are children under 1 year of age. Parents of all ages and income levels say they need more information on care for their children and how to stimulate their healthy development. The United States is the only industrialized country in the world which does not have paid maternity leave. We have got millions of mothers and fathers who have to leave their kids and return to their jobs in those critical years. We are talking about the 0 to 3, the 0 to 6 years, and those early months of a child's life. No one is suggesting that folks do not have to work today. Families have two people in the work force because they need to. But talking about tools, government cannot do everything. Government should not do everything. Government should provide some tools to people. More than half of the mothers of babies under 1 year of age work outside of the home. But studies show that nearly half of the child care available for these infants is of such substandard quality that it threatens those babies' health and safety. We are not talking about bells and whistles; we are talking about basics for good development. Mr. Speaker, if we do not take advantage of the scientific information, of that national will that has been talked about, to take some of the resources that have been the tradition of the Federal Government in early childhood education now with what we know, and as we extend it to help the families from 12 years of education to 14 years of education with the tax bill that was passed, and we provided some help there to make 14 years of education universal, what we now have to really apply ourselves to and commit ourselves to is looking at those ages from 0 to 6 so that that period of time is accounted for and all of the positive stimulus that a child can have to develop needs to happen, which is why I am so excited, not the legislation itself, but it is the science and what the legislation can do together for early learning and opportunity. And I think this kind of a conversation is just the kind of thing that we need to do, and all Members on both sides of the aisle ought to be engaging in this kind of discussion.

Ms. DeLAURO. Sometimes people say, why should the Federal Government--some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, why should the Federal Government get involved in this? The Federal Government, in terms of preschool education, has been involved, for the very serious commitment in terms of Head Start. Head Start works. We know we have to make sure that it has continued quality, and that is the effort. Therefore, this is a natural progression, even the wealth of information that we have, to look at how we then can expand this effort and be able to get to our children as quickly as possible, to have them get a good start on life and an ability to be able to ultimately compete.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues. I am delighted to join with them. I am really excited about this piece of legislation, and about introducing it along with my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern], and with my two colleagues here, the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Allen] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], who are aboard this very exciting effort. Mr. Speaker, it is trite, but these are exciting times with what the science has uncovered. Think back to your own childhood. I can remember my father used to read to me all the time. It got so sometimes you are tired, and you figure you skip some of the pages because you are tired, and you want your son or daughter to go to sleep. But he would tell me later on that I would just trip him up. He would start to leave something out, and I would say, oh, you missed that piece, or something like that. But that is the kind of thing. When the gentleman said he hated to bring it back to his own experience, that is what the experience needs to be about. When we take a look, I think the science is so exciting, not for the science itself but for what it translates into, and what we are able to do. We are given a wonderful opportunity here to do something with this. Before age 3, the brain has the ability to learn and organize new information 10,000 times more effectively than the brain of a 50-year- old. This is these little, teeny people. They have all of this capacity, and the kinds of experiences that affect the brain. I think it is important for parents to know this, for grandparents, for child care providers, for public officials, that when children under a year old experience severe stress, that is whether they are hurt or whether they have a fear or something, or whether they are hungry, that the brain changes, the brain changes. You have what they say, and I am not a scientist. I do not know if some of my colleagues are scientists. But the way the neurons are patterned and so forth, some are used more and some are used less, so the physical surroundings that a child has can often explain the later link, if you will, to some of the problems that we have today like school failure, juvenile delinquency, antisocial behavior. I think it is important for us to realize that, again, in terms of our own obligation as elected officials, one-third of America's victims of child abuse are babies under 1-year-old. That is not only the problem for today, that is the problem in the future.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, our Republican friends are promoting a plan to take taxpayers' dollars out of the public school system and to put it into private schools, benefiting the few and the wealthy. The majority of the American people oppose this idea for a very good reason. This proposal would steal money from the public schools, money that could be used to fix leaky roofs or buying new textbooks or computers for our kids. My Republican colleagues like to use the term ``school choice.'' But vouchers provide parents with a false choice. Vouchers do not even come close to covering the high cost of tuition at the best private schools, making the voucher useless for working families and providing the greatest benefit for wealthy families who can already afford the cost of that tuition. Democrats will oppose Republican efforts to try out this new experiment, because our children are not guinea pigs. We are not going to experiment with their lives and with their future. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican voucher plan.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the women who undergo this late-term abortion procedure do so, they do so when they are left with no other choice. Often, this procedure is the only one which will save the life of the mother and preserve her fertility so that one day, in fact, she can have the chance to have another healthy child. I received a letter from one of my constituents who underwent this procedure. The child that she was carrying was the victim of a chromosomal abnormality so rare that it does not even have a name. Her child was missing genetic information, was missing internal organs, and her digestive system was in difficulty. After meeting with her rabbi, with a genetics counselor, talking with her doctor and with her family, my constituent decided to have this procedure because her doctor told her that it would preserve her ability to have another child. She is now the proud mother of a young girl, realizing, fulfilling the dreams of herself and her family to be able to have a baby. She deeply mourns the child that she lost, but she is grateful that she had the chance to have that baby girl, a chance that she would not have had if she had been forced to carry that pregnancy to term. This bill would have taken that decision out of the constituent's hands and out of the hands of her doctors, and yes, there are many, many doctors who believe that what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to do is to take the decision out of the hands of the doctors. This is the most painful decision that any woman, any family will ever have to make. Families deserve to make it for themselves, and that is why I oppose this bill and this rule. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle truly wanted to ban this procedure, they would have made in order a Democratic alternative that would have included an exemption in the cases when the health of the mother is at risk. They refuse to deal with the issue of the health of the mother. The President has said that he will veto any bill that does not include a health exemption, and indeed, he has already vetoed a virtually identical bill. Instead, what they do is they insist on playing partisan politics with women. We are not going to stand for it. The President is not going to stand for it, and my friends, the women of America are not going to stand for it. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose this bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. We have a responsibility as public servants. That is what our job is here as the U.S. Government, as Democrats, as Republicans. This is not a partisan issue. This is a national issue. We need to reward our veterans for their brave actions and their sacrifice. Veterans must come first. And it is very interesting this morning to take a look at what is going on, on this floor and who is speaking on this side of the aisle, on the Democrat side of the aisle. The gentleman is a lone voice on the other side. Where are his Republican colleagues to come here this morning and to talk about what veterans have done to protect our rights and our liberties in this country? We stand here. We have the opportunity to serve this country because veterans fought for this great Nation of ours. I support this motion. I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] for bringing it before the House. I oppose what the tobacco companies would be allowed to do in making their claims before veterans in this country. It is wrong and we should vote for the Doggett amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the subcommittee chairman. I would like to applaud both the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the ranking member, for the work that has been done to put this bipartisan bill together. As my colleagues know, I have been concerned about the delays in contracting out the Point Beach, Milford Plain Army Corps of Engineers project. This project would enlist Army Corps of Engineers' assistance in raising 58 homes above flood level. The Corps of Engineers is authorized to provide this type of assistance to communities such as Milford under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962. After consultation with Members of both the authorizing and appropriations committees, it is my understanding that no further authorization and no earmarked appropriation is necessary for the Corps to bid out this project. Is that the understanding of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] as well?

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this is good news for the people of Milford, whose homes can now be made safe from flooding. I thank the chairman of the authorizing committee for clarification, and I thank the ranking member.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer a privileged motion.

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

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and rise in support of the Mollohan-Shays amendment. A sampling has been verified, it is a practice in the business community, it is the direction we should go.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment and urge the support of my colleagues as well. The key issue before us here is whether or not we will make a commitment to a fair, accurate census which counts everyone. The Census Bureau's plan to sample is the only way to count those men, women and children who will otherwise be missed. Without sampling, the Census will cost more and be less accurate. Barbara E. Bryant, the Republican-appointed director of the 1990 Census, says that ``I am very much in favor of the plan the Census Bureau has. It builds on work I started back in 1990.'' Bryant began that work to try to improve the count during the 2000 Census. By most estimates, the 1990 Census, which used little sampling, missed at least 4 million people. Scientists know that sampling can reduce the undercount--the people missed and uncounted--from 2% to one-tenth of one percent. A recent study by the National Science Foundation, the objective group of scientists to which Congress turns for scientific advice, concurs that sampling is a fair way to count people who would otherwise be left out. And business groups agree. That's why the most recent Business Week magazine ran an article that said that science, not politics, should settle this issue. Objective Republicans and Democrats who have looked at the facts agree: sampling is more accurate, and more fair. Let's put this question to the American people: we have two options. One will give us inaccurate information and cost more. The other will give us more accurate information, and cost less. More accuracy for less money--how can there even be a debate? I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan-Shays amendment, and thank my colleagues for offering us this opportunity to correct a serious wrong.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues are engaged in a partisan, political probe against the gentlewoman from California, [Ms. Loretta Sanchez], and this resolution is an attempt to prolong and to expand that investigation. Make no mistake, this is not the election of the gentlewoman from California in isolation; this is part and parcel of a Republican strategy that would in fact deny minorities in this country the right to vote. Earlier today, the Republican majority denied the Bureau of the Census the ability to make a full count of Americans, fearing that such sampling methods would enfranchise undercounted urban minorities. This is un-American and it is simply wrong. The fact is that this resolution does not have the authority to force the Justice Department to do anything, and it intrudes on an ongoing legal process. The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez won this election by 1,000 votes. There were other much closer elections in 1996, and no others have been subjected to this kind of a witch hunt. The sore loser in this case was Bob Dornan, a man who cannot believe that he lost, a man whose vendetta against the gentlewoman from California is unprecedented, and a man whose behavior is so offensive that this Congress actually barred him from the floor of this House. The Republican Party has chosen to go after a seat held by a Democratic Hispanic woman in a race where Hispanic votes may have determined the election. This is a deep insensitivity to the right of Latinos and Hispanics in this country to be able to vote. It is clearly an attempt by the Republican Party to create enough smoke to steal this election. If they cannot do that they hope simply to wear down the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez], depleting her time, her energy, her financial resources, in order to weaken her for reelection. It will not happen. She will be reelected to this body. Do not disgrace the people's House tonight. Do not let this body allow for this sort of partisan political purpose. Vote down this resolution.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to say enough is enough. It is time to call a halt to the investigation of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez]. Today's resolution on the floor is nothing more than an effort by the majority party to extend and to expand this investigation. The resolution has no authority to force the Justice Department to do anything. In fact, it will only impede the ongoing legal process. The resolution is simply an attempt by the Republican Party to create enough smoke to steal this election. If they cannot do that, they hope to simply wear the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] down, depleting her time, her energy, and her financial resources in order to weaken her for reelection. The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] won this seat fair and square. Bob Dornan's wild accusations of voter fraud have been proven false. This is an outrageous waste of taxpayers' funds. It is time to call an end to this investigation.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I would just say that he is absolutely right, because the fact of the matter is, and what Democrats have been calling for for the last several weeks by asking for procedural votes, motions to adjourn, et cetera, was an effort to bring to the floor, because the Republican majority in this House, the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, will not allow us to bring up the issue of campaign finance reform. The only tools that are available to the minority party are procedural votes. So the public understands what is going on here. The fact of the matter is, on both sides of the aisle we need to have a thorough and a complete conversation and debate about campaign finance reform. They do not want to let us. And I will tell my colleagues why they do not want to let us. If we read Mr. Gingrich in the paper today, the Speaker will support a bill that let the good times roll; open up the floodgates; allow all kinds of money to come into the system. My colleagues, it is not the kind of reform the American people are looking for. What he says is that there is not enough money in politics; we need more money in politics. The Washington Post has said 8 in 10 Americans believe money has too much influence on who wins elections, but the Speaker says we need more money. Our colleague on the other side of the aisle just a minute ago was talking about influence in the process. If we want to talk about influence, which the American public gets in a second, $50 billion in a tax break to the tobacco industry, not just a few weeks ago, and guess who was the single biggest contributor to the Republican campaign in the last election? It does not take a rocket scientist to figure it out. The tobacco industry. And, fortunately, in the Senate and in this body, we said no to that kind of a payoff. That is what we have to stop here, is to make sure that we have the opportunity to get the people in the process and get the specialists out of it. Let me just say what even his colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas, has said about the Doolittle bill that the Speaker would support, would bring us back to the dark ages. Let us get out of the dark ages. Let us bring campaign finance reform into the light.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment. This is just common sense. Tobacco kills. U.S. taxpayer dollars should not be used to help the tobacco industry market this deadly product. This is not a car. It is not a computer. It is not some piece of technology which is going to help to improve the quality of life. It is a product that, in fact, kills people. We have seen the dangers of smoking right here at home. We have spent billions of dollars on health care for people with tobacco-related diseases. We should not be in the business to allow the tobacco industry to turn its gaze outward to the untapped markets across the world. Now that their market shares are beginning to decline in the United States, our Government has no business using taxpayer dollars to help the tobacco industry export this deadly product. The Department of Agriculture is already barred from promoting tobacco through the market access program. This amendment would simply make Federal policy consistent across the Departments. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, yesterday the majority leader stated that it is his ``expectation that we will finally consider campaign finance reform,'' this fall. I have a message for my colleague from Texas. As of this past Monday, September 22, it is already fall. The American people have waited too long. They know the system is broken, and they want it fixed. The people lose faith day by day in our political system. Example: Tobacco industry gets $50 billion in a tax break; tobacco industry, single biggest contributor to the Republican Party in the last election. I do not know any working family in this country that got a $50 billion tax break. The American people understand this. The other body, in fact, has scheduled the vote; the President wants to pass a bill. I ask the Speaker of this House, where is our vote? And, yes, my colleagues, every single day the minority will use the tool available to them, calling for motions to adjourn, until they bring up campaign finance reform. The American people deserve it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Mollohan amendment to restore funding to the Legal Services Corporation to $250 million. My colleagues, over two-thirds of Legal Services' clients are poor women. Most of them are women with children who are seeking to receive child support, protect themselves or their children from abuse, or obtain decent housing, food or medical care. Please do not take my word for it. According to John Erlenborn, a Republican Member of this House for 20 years, Legal Services funds benefited approximately 4 million people last year, most of them children living in poverty. Three-quarters of Legal Services' cases involve or benefit children. Access to Legal Services can make the difference in which a child gets support from an absent parent, can live in a safe home, receives food, medical care, or access to education. In 1996, Legal Services programs closed 50,000 cases representing women who needed protection from abuse. Another 200,000 were family and juvenile cases involving domestic violence. Who can forget that 2 years ago, even as this Congress debated cutting Legal Services funding, a woman was tragically murdered by her estranged husband just hours after she had been turned down for assistance in obtaining a restraining order, because of budget cuts at the Legal Services agency she phoned for help. As a former Republican colleague, Mr. John Erlenborn, writes, ``I believe that access to justice should not be limited to those who have sufficient wealth to pay for it.'' I share Congressman Erlenborn's belief, and I hope that my colleagues do as well. Help mothers get the child support their children deserve; help children get the medical care that they need; help protect women and children from the family members who abuse them. Vote ``yes'' on the Mollohan amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for giving us the opportunity to talk about these deplorable human rights abuses, as has been stated, right here on U.S. territory. The report that was issued in July indicates that local government in the Northern Mariana Islands looks the other way as tens of thousands of low-paid and disenfranchised women, mostly from China and the Philippines, are forced to live and work in squalid, unsafe conditions. Guards, barbed wire have prevented them from escaping. The women suffer, the owners of the sweatshops prosper. Some, as my colleague the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] pointed out, have been forced into prostitution. Whistle blowers are abused, troublemakers are sent back to their home countries, while the local government has turned a blind eye, leaving these women and young girls with little hope for protection. This kind of treatment is intolerable. I happen to have a particular interest in this area because my mother was a garment worker. She worked in a sweatshop in New Haven, CT, as so many women did, where they worked for pennies. They worked in all conditions. This is not the right thing to do. We made some changes here in the country. We tend to think that sweatshops do not exist any longer. In fact, they do, and right under our very eyes in territories under U.S. control. I am pleased we have an opportunity to insert some funds here which will allow for there to be law enforcement efforts. This would allow U.S. Federal law officials to do the right thing. More important, it would help thousands of women regain their dignity and their honor. We responded immediately this past summer to discovering illegal sweatshops in New York City. Americans do know what is right in this area. Forced labor, entrapment into prostitution, are wrong. When we discovered the conditions in New York City, Americans were outraged. We demanded change, and it occurred. We should do the same for the women who are trapped in the Northern Marianas sweatshops.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, since the very first day of this Congress, Democrats have been urging our Republican colleagues to take action on campaign finance reform. Democrats believe that we need to stop the flow of money into politics, and we have used every single procedure at our disposal to attempt to force a vote on this issue. But despite his famous handshake with President Clinton 2 years ago, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] has thus far refused to act on the issue, refused to schedule a hearing, refused to schedule debate. He has refused to schedule a vote on campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, Democrats believe and the American people believe that our political system is broken and that it needs fixing. The Republican leader of the other body finally caved in to Democratic pressure and has promised to vote on campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, I ask, ``Where is our vote in the House of Representatives, in the people's House?''