Lisa Blunt Rochester

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, today, during Women's History Month, I rise to recognize and call attention to a woman of distinction in my state of Delaware, Drewry Nash Fennell. While she currently serves as the Chief Officer of Strategic Communication and Development for Christiana Care Health System, many in my state know Drew not for any title she has held, but for her role as a trailblazer on any number of important public policy fronts. Drew is an attorney by trade and applied her skills as the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware. During her time at the ACLU, Drew fought for improvements to the child welfare system, the criminal justice system, and LGBT rights. She, along with her equally distinguished wife Lisa, helped spearhead the Equality Delaware campaign, which saw Delaware go from a state which legally permitted discrimination against LGBT citizens, to a state with full marriage equality in a span of less than a decade. Drew applied her years of experience and extensive knowledge of the criminal justice system as the executive director of the Delaware Criminal Justice Council. Drew then took her work from the CJC to the Governor's Office, where she served as Deputy Chief of Staff and eventually Chief of Staff to former Delaware Governor Jack Markell. Throughout her time in Delaware government, her colleagues came to know her as one of the most effective advocates around. She did it all with a warm smile and a reassuring hand on the shoulder. She endured bigotry and ignorance while maintaining class and composure, all the while, making remarkable progress for the people of Delaware. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great joy to rise today to recognize Drew not only as a constituent, but as a friend and confidant. Her work in Delaware has been truly transformational and I'm confident it is nowhere near complete. Drew will soon be the 2018 Girl Scouts of the Chesapeake Bay Woman of Distinction. I can't think of a more deserving recipient of that honor.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, Mr. Nadler, for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, as a former Delaware Secretary of Labor, I rise today to strongly oppose H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017. This bill on the floor today would roll back the clock on civil rights for people with disabilities. Twenty-seven years ago, Congress passed the transformative Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibited discrimination against people with disabilities and mandated that they have an equal opportunity to participate in society. Before the ADA, a person with a disability could be barred from a meaningful career, education, and, really, to live a fulfilling life. Mr. Chairman, some claim that the ADA exposes businesses to exorbitant costs or damage awards, but this is not the norm. It is one of the myths that has perpetuated. According to the Department of Labor, 57 percent of accommodations cost nothing at all, while the rest typically cost only $500. So once you peel back the myths surrounding the ADA, we are left with one simple question: Why not comply? The monetary cost is typically minimal in comparison to the value of providing qualified Americans with a job or a shot at the American Dream; or giving an individual with a disability the means to go to the grocery store, pick up their children from childcare, or travel, or work. That is why these standards are so essential. They ensure real, fair, and equal access for everyone. People with disabilities simply want to live an independent life, free from discrimination. This bill rolls back that progress. I will be voting against this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify my position on roll call votes cast on February 13, 2018. On Roll Call Vote Number 70, on the Lexington VA Health Care System, I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote Number 71, to extend the Generalized System of Preferences and to make technical changes to the competitive need limitations provision of the program, I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``Yea.''

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for the opportunity to speak at this Special Order hour. Mr. Speaker, as the former secretary of labor and head of personnel for the State of Delaware, I am here this evening on the floor of the House to lend my voice in support of the thousands of men and women across the country who are dedicated public servants who currently belong to public sector labor unions; who teach our children, pave our roads, protect us, care for our seniors; who don't receive huge salaries; who don't work in palatial offices; and whose very right to organize and collectively bargain is under attack. At the end of February, the Supreme Court is set to hear a case, Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, which is simply another attempt to weaken the rights of public sector employees in the fight for better pay, paid sick leave, and the ability to one day retire with dignity. Mr. Speaker, the plaintiff in this case seeks to bar the ability for public sector unions from collecting fair share fees. Fair share fees are collected from public sector employees to help their unions negotiate for better wages, benefits, and protections. It is important to note that no union can be effective at negotiating with employers unless the employees who reap the benefits of these negotiations pay for the collective bargaining--even if they are not members of the union. The Supreme Court has already ensured that a union's political activities and their collective bargaining activities are separate from their fair share dues. No public sector worker is being asked to contribute funds to causes to which they do not agree. It should be noted that unions go through painstaking detail to ensure that no funds are misused. When our first responders, teachers, and public sector workers come together and form strong unions, they win benefits, like better working conditions, better wages, healthcare, and retirement security, which also benefit nonunion members. As our economy shifts and the wealth gap grows, the protective power of unions must be strengthened, not weakened. Without the freedom to come together, working people would not have the power in numbers they need to make our communities and our country more prosperous. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the Justices will see the value, need, and success of public sector collective bargaining and that everyone must pay their fair share.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the remarkable life of trailblazer and Delaware icon, George C. Wright, Jr. From humble beginnings in Chesapeake City, Maryland, George began his education in a one-room schoolhouse and excelled as an accomplished relay racer. Following the competition of his schooling, George was drafted into the United States Army, where he served in one of the first integrated units. After transitioning from the armed forces to civilian life, George continued his life of service at Dover Air Force Base in a career that spanned 33 years. His tenure began by offloading trucks in the Aerial Port section of the base and led to his serving as the Chief of Staff for the Civilian Personnel Office's Affirmative Employment Section, the second most senior non-military position at Dover. George was a dedicated public servant who built bridges and found common ground while serving for 12 years on the Smyrna Town Council. In 1981, he overcame the odds by becoming mayor of Smyrna by twenty votes--making history as the first African American to lead a Delaware municipality. George dutifully served his town for 14 years as mayor and ran unopposed in every re-election race--highlighting the faith his community placed in him George's work in government inspired him to help Delaware's other 57 cities and towns through his role as executive director of the League of Local Governments and as a board member of the National League of Cities. George was a devoted husband, father, grandfather, and great- grandfather and was an active member of Bethel AME Church in Smyrna. He will be missed by family members, friends, and neighbors alike for his community leadership and the role model he became for young people across Delaware. We are deeply saddened by the loss of George, and I want to express my deep gratitude for his service to our state, commitment to bettering the lives of those he served, and for breaking down barriers that allowed me and many others to follow in his footsteps.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and mentor, the gentleman from South Carolina, for his kind words and for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we deal with important issues every day in this House, but there are few issues as meaningful to so many lives as the Children's Health Insurance Program. At this time the divisions in this House mimic those in our nation. And on many issues, those divisions can be challenging to bridge. One of my top priorities as a new Member of this body is to help bridge those divides, instead of widening them. I hope that my colleagues--both Democrats and Republicans--will tell me if I fall short on that commitment. One of the few things that does not divide us is the importance of children's healthcare and the CHIP program. When it was signed into law 20 years ago, this landmark legislation meant so much to me. First, as a mother of then 9-year-old, Alyssa, and 11-year-old, Alex I deeply understood the fear a parent could feel with a sick child and no insurance. But also because at that time, I was the Deputy Secretary of Health & Social Services for Delaware. And I had the honor of helping implement the law and seeing thousands of children who had never had healthcare get the coverage they deserved. From the 600,000 children across the nation who were the program's first enrollees in 1998 to the nearly 9,000,000 children in 2016. Kids across this country owe their yearly check-ups, their immunizations, and their doctor's office lollipops to this program. And in Delaware we owe a big debt to the CHIP program, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act. Today, 97 percent of Delaware's children obtain medical coverage because of these programs. In 1997, the legislation passed in a Republican Congress with a Democratic President, highlighting how this truly was not a partisan issue. That's why it's disappointing to me that we aren't moving forward on renewing the Children's Health Insurance Program with that same reasonable, bipartisan approach. The bill before us today forces us to choose between healthcare for children and healthcare for other vulnerable populations. Choosing between prevention and healthcare for kids is unacceptable-- particularly in a nation as great as ours. I have spoken to many of you over the past 10 months. I know that the people I have met in both political parties know--in their hearts--that we should not play games with the healthcare of our children. I know that it may seem hard to oppose one's party leadership. But today I ask you to consider whether this is one of those rare times . . . those rare subjects . . . Where we can come together to stand up for the those in need . . . And to stand up for a clean reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program. That's what our motion to recommit does. Let's step back and consider whether we can use our common desire to deliver healthcare to our children, as a moment to surprise the public . . . To set a new tone for how we deal with one another . . . and how we address issues on which both of our parties fundamentally agree. Please join with me on this vote to put our children first--they're watching.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and fellow member of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. McGovern, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 71, the Republicans' proposed budget. This plan would make extreme and irresponsible cuts to domestic spending programs and weaken our Nation's social safety net. We should be proposing a budget that provides for real economic growth. We should be strengthening programs that help young Americans access higher education, increasing infrastructure funding, and investing in our Nation's roads and bridges. We should be focused on vision, aspiration, a budget reflective of our great Nation and the great things we can do. This budget instructs my friend from Massachusetts and my committee to find $10 billion in cuts to agriculture programs over the next 10 years. This decrease will affect our ability to fund essential USDA programs across our country in every congressional district. These are programs that farmers, schoolchildren, families, communities, and Americans rely on. Where will we be forced to take the money from? Rural development? conservation programs? our already insufficient nutrition programs? resources for schools? At a time when spending on fighting wildfires has surpassed previous records, will we cut that budget? This budget and accompanying tax plan does not put us on strong fiscal ground either. Many people don't realize the significance of the agricultural industry in Delaware. Our State is filled with family farmers that produce specialty crops, commodities. Delaware has the highest number of chickens per capita--300--of any State in the Nation. Many of these farmers rely on the very programs that we will be forced to undermine if these cuts are realized, and that hurts all Americans. Access to food is not just a farmer's issue; it will affect rural communities, urban communities, and all of us. This is not a responsible way to govern.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify my position for the record on roll call votes cast on September 25, 2017. On Roll Call Vote Number 530, on consideration of H.R. 3823 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``No.'' On Roll Call Vote Number 531, on consideration of H.R. 2061 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``Yea.''

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate the remarkable life of Delaware icon, Thomas H. Draper. Tom grew up in Milton, Delaware and spent his summers at the Delaware beaches. Tom went on to college at Brown University where he excelled, not only by earning his spot as captain of the 1964 Brown Bears lacrosse team, but also by being named an All-American before eventually earning admission to the Brown University Athletic Hall of Fame. Tom returned to his home state of Delaware after college, moving back to Sussex County. He quickly purchased radio station WTHD and began his career in broadcasting. Tom would go on to purchase WBOC-TV in 1980 and helped build it into a broadcasting mainstay in ``The First State.'' To know Tom, however, was to know that he was so much more than his career, impressive as it was. Tom loved being outdoors and spending time with his family. His four children and nine grandchildren were the light of his life, and what a life he led. Thomas Henry Draper passed away earlier this week at the age of 76, just a few weeks after he celebrated 50 years in broadcasting. We know that our little state had a place in Tom's big heart and we know that the legacy that Tom leaves behind will make a mark on Delaware for generations to come.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, straight from the train, I had the opportunity to join fellow Delawarians for a rally in support of DREAMers in our State and across our country. These are young adults who were brought to America as children. This is the only home they know. I have had the opportunity to hear from some of the 75 DREAMers at Delaware State University. Every single one of them is excelling. They are part of our future. Ending DACA will cost Delaware's GDP $88 million, and create a loss of nearly $460 billion for our country. America thrives on our diversity. We have a moral obligation to stand up for these young Americans, and I will continue to join my colleagues in fighting to reinstate DACA.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2353, the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act. This important legislation would allow more Americans to enter the workforce with the skills needed to compete for high-skilled, in-demand jobs. Delaware employers tell me they need a skilled workforce. CTE support is a vital tool in addressing the skills gap in many industries in our country. Our support ensures that all students have access to high- quality CTE programs. It allows States to strengthen these programs, providing hands-on learning opportunities that lead to higher graduation rates as well as better postsecondary and career options. In 2012, Delaware started Pathways to Prosperity to give high school students an industry-recognized certificate, college credits, and relevant work experience, all before they graduate. In 2 years, it has grown from 30 students to over 6,000 students, who are now better suited to determine their next steps and build a career. I thank Mr. Thompson and also Mr. Krishnamoorthi for their leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1842, 1862 and 1761. While I support these bills, I do not support the mandatory minimum requirements in them. As a mother I constantly worry about the wellbeing of my children, and as a legislator I am concerned about the wellbeing of all our nation's children. These bills are very well meaning and I thank my colleagues for all the hard work done on them. No one here wants to see a child sexually assaulted or abused. Violence against children can have long lasting physical and emotional effects on a child. These bills go a long way and making sure those who commit these heinous crimes are punished. While these bills address important issues and help to further protect our children, the mandatory minimum provisions are concerning to me. These bills would expand the number of individuals subject to mandatory minimums. Mandatory minimums are an unfair one size fits all solution that often do not take into account circumstances of a crime. Drug related mandatory minimums have led to increased prison population. Many of these people were given harsh and overly punitive prison time. We should not be looking for ways to increase the use of mandatory minimums, but ways to return discretion to judges. Congress should not be legislating sentencing. This discretion should be left in the hands of judges. Judges are able to adapt sentences to fit the individual circumstances of particular crimes and offenders. My hope is that we are able to work together to protect our nation's children and give our judges the judicial discretion they need when it comes to sentencing those convicted in a court of law.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Judicial Conference. Judicial Conference of the United States, Washington, DC, April 3, 2017. Hon. Paul D. Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: On behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States, I write to transmit the Conference's bankruptcy judgeship recommendations and corresponding draft legislation for the 115th Congress. The Conference recommends to Congress that it authorize four additional permanent bankruptcy judgeships and convert 14 existing temporary bankruptcy judgeships to permanent status, as set forth in the enclosures. The preservation of current on-board resources in these courts is of great concern to the Conference. All 14 temporary bankruptcy judgeships included in the Conference's recommendation have a lapse date of May 25, 2017. These bankruptcy courts would face a serious and, in many cases, debilitating workload crisis if these temporary judgeships were to expire. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, for example, would be crippled as five of their six authorized judgeships are temporary, all with the risk of expiring in 2017. Although bankruptcy filings nationwide have been declining in recent years, the districts included in these recommendations generally have experienced an increase in filings resulting in stress on existing judicial resources. Indeed, since the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act in 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-8--the last time additional judgeship resources were authorized for most of the courts included in the Conference's recommendation--these districts have seen weighted filings increase by more than 55 percent. Section 152(b)(2) of title 28, United States Code, requires the Judicial Conference to recommend to Congress the authorization of additional bankruptcy judgeships. Following a formal survey of all judicial circuits, the Conference determines where additional resources are needed based upon the circuit councils' requests and established criteria including each court's workload and case filing statistics, geographic needs, and pertinent additional factors. As part of this survey, the Judicial Conference also considers requests from the circuits to convert or extend existing temporary bankruptcy judgeships based upon the district's needs for stable judicial resources. The Judicial Conference respectfully requests that you give your full consideration to the Judiciary's resource needs as identified in this proposed legislation. Additional caseload information concerning these recommendations is available upon request. If we may be of further assistance to you in this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or the Office of Legislative Affairs, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Sincerely, James C. Duff, Secretary.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Conyers and my colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee for their work on this important legislation and for bringing this bill to the floor today. An efficient bankruptcy system is important to the smooth functioning of our economy. The preservation and addition of these positions will add needed certainty to our legal system. As the Judicial Conference of the United States highlighted in their report to Congress, these resources will benefit individuals and corporations, and are necessary to keep this system working. I am proud of the work that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware does to protect jobs, creditors, and economic engines in our communities across the country. This legislation is a perfect example of Congress hearing the needs of independent experts in the judiciary and acting in a bipartisan, collaborative manner to address a looming problem. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on other pressing problems for our constituents in such collaborative ways. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from AARP which makes clear health care will be sabotaged under this bill, and healthcare costs for older Americans will ``dramatically increase.'' [From the House Democratic Leader's Press Office, May 3, 2017] AARP Press Release: New Changes to the AHCA Makes a Bad Bill Worse! Dear Representative: Older Americans care deeply about access to and affordability of health care. With the addition of the Upton Amendment, as reported, we once again write to share our opposition to the American Health Care Act (AHCA) and urge you to vote NO. Changes under consideration that would allow states to waive important consumer protections-- allowing insurance companies to once again charge Americans with pre-existing conditions more because they've had cancer, diabetes or heart disease--would make a bad bill even worse. This would be devastating for the 25 million Americans 50-64 who have a deniable preexisting condition. The Upton amendment would do little to reduce the massive premium increases for those with pre-existing conditions. Throughout consideration of the AHCA, we have been expressing serious concerns about the impact that this legislation will have on older Americans. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)'s last estimate further demonstrates the harmful impact of this bill on older Americans and some of our most vulnerable. Specifically, the American Health Care Act will weaken the fiscal sustainability of Medicare; dramatically increase premium and out-of-pocket costs for 50- 64 year olds purchasing coverage on the individual insurance market; allow insurance companies to once again discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions; substantially increase the number of Americans without insurance; and put at risk millions of children and adults with disabilities and poor seniors who depend on the Medicaid program to access long-term services and supports and other benefits. Our members and others 50 years of age and older care deeply about health care and want to know where their elected leaders stand. Recognizing the importance of the upcoming vote on the American Health Care Act, AARP intends to inform our members, and others over age 50, how their elected officials voted. We'll communicate the results of the vote in our widely-circulated publications, in e-mail alerts, in our online channels, and through the media. Again, we urge all Representatives to vote NO on the American Health Care Act in its current form. Medicare The American Health Care Act repeals provisions in current law that have strengthened Medicare's fiscal outlook, specifically, the repeal of the additional 0.9 percent payroll tax on higher-income workers. Repealing this provision would remove billions from the Hospital Insurance trust fund, hasten the insolvency of Medicare, and diminish Medicare's ability to pay for services in the future. Individual Private Insurance Market Currently, about 25 million Americans age 50-64 have a pre- existing condition, about 6.1 million purchase insurance in the non-group market, and nearly 3.2 million are currently eligible to receive subsidies for health insurance coverage through either the federal health benefits exchange or a state-based exchange (exchange). Since passage of the ACA, the number of 50-64 year old Americans who are uninsured has dropped by half. We are deeply concerned that the AHCA would be a significant step backwards and result in millions of older Americans who cannot afford their health care, including many simply losing their health care. Based on CBO estimates, approximately 14 million Americans will lose coverage next year, while a total of 24 million Americans would lose coverage over the next 10 years. Affordability of both premiums and cost-sharing is critical to older Americans and their ability to obtain and access health care. A typical 50-64 year old seeking coverage through an exchange has a median annual income of under $25,000 and already pays significant out-of-pocket costs for health care. We have serious concerns--reinforced by the CBO estimate--that the bill under consideration will dramatically increase health care costs for 50-64 year olds who purchase health care through an exchange due both to the changes in age rating from 3:1 (already a compromise that requires uninsured older Americans to pay three times more than younger individuals) to 5:1 (or more) and reductions in current tax credits for older Americans. CBO concluded that the bill will substantially raise premiums for older people and force many into lower quality plans. Age rating plus reduced tax credits equal an unaffordable age tax. Our previous estimates on the age-rating change showed that premiums for current coverage could increase by up to $3,200 for a 64 year old. In addition, the bill reduced the tax credits available for older Americans to help purchase insurance. We estimate that the bill's changes to current law's tax credits alone could increase premium costs by more than $5,800 for a 64-year old earning $15,000. Overall, both the bill's tax credit changes and 5:1 age rating would result in skyrocketing cost increases for older Americans. In their analysis, CBO found that a 64 year old earning $26,500 a year would see their premiums increase by $12,900--758 percent--from $1,700 to $14,600 a year. Current law prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against individuals due to a pre-existing condition. The bill would repeal pre-existing condition protections and would once again allow insurance companies to charge Americans more--we estimate up to $25,000 more--due to a pre-existing condition. As a result, the 4o percent of 50- to 64-year-olds (about 25 million people) who have a deniable preexisting condition risk losing access to affordable coverage. The Upton Amendment, which would add funds to address the impact of premium increases for those with pre- existing conditions, would do little to mitigate the massive premium increase for some of the most vulnerable Americans. AARP strongly opposes any weakening of the law's pre-existing condition protections which benefit millions of Americans. Medicaid and Long-Term Services and Supports AARP opposes the provisions of the American Health Care Act that create a per capita cap financing structure in the Medicaid program. We are concerned that these provisions could endanger the health, safety, and care of millions of individuals who depend on the essential services provided through Medicaid. CBO found that the bill would cut Medicaid funding by $880 billion over 2017-2026, about 25 percent less than what it projects under current law. Medicaid is a vital safety net and intergenerational lifeline for millions of individuals, including over 17.4 million low-income seniors and children and adults with disabilities who rely on the program for critical health care and long-term services and supports (LTSS, i.e., assistance with daily activities such as eating, bathing, dressing, managing medications, and transportation). Older adults and people with disabilities now account for over sixty percent of Medicaid spending, and cuts of this magnitude will result in loss of benefits and services for this vulnerable population. Of these 17.4 million individuals: 6.9 million are ages 65 and older (which equals more than 1 in every 7 elderly Medicare beneficiaries); 10.5 million are children and adults living with disabilities; and about 10.8 million are so poor or have a disability that they qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid (dual eligibles). Dual eligibles account for almost 33 percent of Medicaid spending. While they comprise a relatively small percentage of enrollees, they account for a disproportionate share of total Medicare and Medicaid spending. Individuals with disabilities of all ages and older adults rely on critical Medicaid services, including home and community-based services (HCBS) for assistance with daily activities such as eating, bathing, dressing, and home modifications; nursing home care; and other benefits such as hearing aids and eyeglasses. In providing a fixed amount of federal funding per person, this approach to financing would likely result in overwhelming cost shifts to states, state taxpayers, and families unable to shoulder the costs of care without sufficient federal support. This would result in cuts to program eligibility, services, or both--ultimately harming some of our nation's most vulnerable citizens.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I know in these polarized times we often forget our actual connections to each other, but we are all connected. A sick, uninsured employee affects the bottom line of a small business. Uncompensated care in the emergency room, we all pay the bill. When a child from an uninsured family goes to school with an undiagnosed virus, not only does it impact his or her ability to learn, it impacts other kids and puts them at risk. We are all connected. As Martin Luther King so powerfully said: ``We may have come over on different ships, but we are all in the same boat now.'' Mr. Speaker, it is time we start rowing together. Unfortunately, this bill fails to recognize this. It still fails that we are connected, and, instead of bringing us together, this simply divides us by providing less coverage, imposing an age tax, forcing people to pay more, and stripping key protections. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1628.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I know that I am new to the House, but I was elected by my constituents to reach across the aisle and get things done. Sadly, instead of reaching across the aisle to work on commonsense fixes to the Affordable Care Act, some of my Republican colleagues have decided to push through a healthcare bill that, instead of increasing health coverage, actually takes it away from more than 24 million people and imposes an age tax. In my State alone, this bill will cut Medicaid coverage for 60,000 individuals and result in a $170 million loss of Federal funds at a time when my State is facing a major budget shortfall. Additionally, almost 22,000 individuals in my State will lose access to employer- sponsored insurance, and more than 6,000 individuals who are currently receiving coverage through our healthcare exchange will lose coverage as a result of this bill. Mr. Speaker, given its impact on our Nation's working families and our most vulnerable citizens, I believe passage of this bill would be an act of medical malpractice--pun intended. So I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1628.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of New York (Ms. Meng), the sponsor of this legislation.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 382, the 100 Years of Women in Congress Act. This bipartisan legislation will recognize the work that Jeannette Rankin, the first woman elected to Congress in 1916, accomplished fighting for women's rights. It will rename the USDA's Women and Minorities in STEM Fields Program to the Jeannette Rankin Women and Minorities in STEM Fields Grant Program. In our time, it is critical that we encourage more women to enter STEM fields across this country. In receiving a bachelor's degree in biology before women even had the right to vote, she set an example for those who followed her to follow their passions for science and to achieve impactful leadership roles. As I travel through Delaware, one of the consistent messages that I hear from businesses and universities is the need for more engineers. We have a wealth of knowledge in our young girls who are demanding rigorous programs that put them in place for rewarding careers. These types of programs match the boundless enthusiasm with concrete steps towards achieving meaningful career goals that benefit our entire country. My sister, Thea, demonstrates the impact of successful STEM education from organizations like the Forum to Advance Minority Engineers--FAME-- for schoolchildren in Delaware, to her attending an HBCU as an engineering major, and in her career spent serving our country as an engineer with the Army. My late husband Charles received undergraduate and graduate degrees in mechanical and aerospace engineering. Those degrees gave him the opportunity to travel the world as an engineer and give back to the energy sector. However, my family and I know that the answer doesn't simply end with STEM. It is also about incorporating the arts into one's education in the form of STEAM, where we can see the balance that a quality education provides. In my experiences, as the first woman elected to Congress from Delaware, I understand the challenges that come with trying to break through barriers. That is why this legislation and the impact of getting more young women to pursue STEM and STEAM careers is so deeply personal to me. As Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin said before taking her oath of office in 1917--nearly 4 years before women had even gained the right to vote through the 19th Amendment--as you heard before, she said: ``I may be the first woman to be a Member of Congress, but I won't be the last.'' I am honored to serve as one of the more than 300 women to follow her lead. When we look to history to guide us in challenging moments, we will look to people like Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin, and I am confident she would be honored to have her name associated with this legislation and its aims. I thank the sponsors, and I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for this bipartisan work. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members as well to support passage of H.R. 382, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice to the chorus of new Members of the 115th Congress. It is fitting that we make this commitment on Valentine's Day. It is a holiday to show appreciation and also love, and I think that is what this is really about. It is about our love for our country and our love for our friends and families and neighbors. It is also about civility, and to me, civility is not about the what. We can all disagree on the what. Civility is about the how. It is about our tone. It is about our tenor. It is about the words that we choose to use, and it is about respect. As freshmen, our class is special. I feel we are special. Just like Claudia said, we are actually awesome. And it was really telling that, at one of our retreats, orientations, we came together and we asked if we could just be alone, no staff, no one else in the room--just us. We actually said: Let's try to find common ground. Who here has a port? Who here has served in public life? Again, our goal wasn't to find ways to divide, but to find ways to come together. If we expect civility from others, including our children, then we need to model it. Our signatures on this document show our commitment to civility, to caring, and, most of all, to getting things done. That is what America wants, and that is what America deserves.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 57 today for two reasons. I believe that the majority's repeated use of the Congressional Review Act this week and last week is unnecessary, constraining, and, in this case, adds cost. The Congressional Review Act has only been used successfully in 2000 one time, and already this month the House is considering its eighth joint resolution of disapproval. I believe in our role of oversight of the executive branch, but using the blunt tool of the CRA to block regulatory action in an effort to support and improve public education is an abuse of the CRA. The newly confirmed Secretary of Education can already amend targeted rules like the one this resolution is addressing without fully repealing the guidance and preventing similar rules in the future. The Every Student Succeeds Act was a major bipartisan accomplishment, and I am particularly concerned about the uncertainty for the States and local stakeholders caused by repealing these accountability standards in the underlying rule. In Delaware, just as in States across the country, local stakeholder groups and State departments of education have been working together to provide thorough feedback and guidance on these accountability rules that the majority wants to repeal. I have heard from my State board of education that repealing these regulations would cause States to delay the development of their plans, potentially costing them both time and money to gather feedback on a significantly different set of guidelines for the plan, and, most importantly, further delaying the implementation of changes to the education system that our students need and deserve. Mr. Speaker, my question to my colleagues would be: Why get rid of the whole rule when it comes from a bill that ultimately happened in such a bipartisan way? Why prevent accountability and guidance for States?

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. I will oppose H.J. Res. 57, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 57.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Judith H. Hoopes, of Greenville, Delaware, a lifelong Delawarean and an invaluable member of our community. A 1960 graduate of Duke University, her college major in history led to her long-time involvement with the Delaware Historical Society. She was involved in many state arts organizations, including her appointment as Chair of the Delaware State Arts Council by then- Governor Pete duPont. Dedicated to her community, Judy was a valuable asset to the numerous non-profits in Delaware she lent her support. She was a founding board member and past Chair of the Delaware Community Foundation, was the first woman to Chair the YMCA board, a founder of the Fund for Women, and a longtime Woodlawn Trustee. For these and many other contributions Judy received the Lifetime Achievement in Philanthropy Award from the Association of Fundraising Professionals. Judy and her late husband Robert were married for 53 years. Their family was the focus of their lives, and their wonderful children and grandchildren are a testament to their good work. I am honored to call their daughter, Stephanie, and son, Robert Jr., friends. Their commitment to community and love of Delaware will surely carry on their mother's spirit. My sympathy goes out to Stephanie, Robert and his wife Hilary, Judy's five grandchildren James, Elizabeth, Penelope, Riter, and Charlotte, as well as their extended family and Judy's many friends. We are deeply saddened by the loss of Judy, and I want to express my deep gratitude for her dedication and service to her community, and the state of Delaware.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify my position for the record on roll call votes cast on January 9, 2017 and January 3, 2017 On Roll Call Vote Number 25, on consideration of H.R. 304 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote Number 24, on consideration of H.R. 315 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``Yea.'' On Roll Call Vote Number 3, on consideration of H. Res. 5 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``No.''