Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we can all agree on one thing--the skyrocketing cost of malpractice insurance impacts every doctor and, indeed, every American. But contrary to what this majority has repeated time and again, the reason for these soaring costs has nothing to do with frivolous lawsuits. Indeed, a new report by the Center for Justice and Democracy found that in the last 4 years, the 15 largest malpractice insurers increased premiums by 120 percent--more than doubling premiums. And what about all those frivolous lawsuits supposedly driving those costs? The same report found that claims during that same period rose by just 5.7 percent. In my State of Connecticut, the contrast between claims and rates is even starker, with premiums for our 3 largest malpractice insurers shooting up 213 percent over the last 4 years while claims have increased only 1.6 percent. So, let's call this situation what it is, Mr. Speaker--insurance companies gouging doctors. To inflate their own profits, insurance companies are putting doctors at risk, destabilizing our health care industry and driving up costs for everyone. And what is this majority's response? Granting authority to State insurance commissioners to order refunds for doctors when excessive rates are imposed? Requiring insurance companies to get approval before rate increases? Demanding that States set standards for actuaries to calculate rates? No. Their response: ``blame the patients.'' Limit damages. Drive a wedge between the parties being hurt the most by rising malpractice costs--doctors and patients. At all costs, it seems they are saying, do not hold the insurance industry's feet to the fire on this issue. Mr. Speaker, this debate ought to be about helping doctors--about doing something meaningful to ensure they can afford to continue practicing medicine. Instead, this bill would insulate insurance companies from having to follow any kind of responsible guidelines regarding how malpractice insurance rates are set. And, as such, this bill will do nothing to actually drive those rates down--an admission the insurance industry itself has acknowledged. None of this is to say that we do not need to crack down on frivolous lawsuits--indeed, last year I voted to penalize lawyers who file frivolous suits with a tough ``3 strikes and you're out'' rule. And today, Democrats wanted to offer a substitute, which would have taken a comprehensive approach to the malpractice insurance crisis. Our bill would have prevented frivolous lawsuits but also required insurance companies to pass some of their savings on to health care providers, as well as providing assistance to the physicians and communities who need it the most. We had also hoped to strike a provision of this bill that would have protected manufacturers such as the makers of Vioxx from liability. But again, Republicans prevented that amendment from coming to the floor today for consideration. And little wonder--I would not want to justify why Republicans were protecting the makers of a drug found to be responsible for thousands of deaths either. Mr. Speaker, in the face of premium increases that are 20 times faster than malpractice claims increases--frivolous or otherwise--this legislation is irresponsible, plain and simple. I urge my colleagues to do right by doctors and families by opposing this bill. Let's come back and pass a bill that will actually address the malpractice insurance crisis.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. This legislation, which is long overdue, will improve commerce in this country, better the lives of the nation's postal workers, and guarantee that the mail will be delivered each day to the 140 million American households that look forward to a daily visit from their letter carrier. In a time of declining revenues and increased costs, it is no secret that the Postal Service faces financial challenges. Competition in the package-delivery business and from Internet-based communication has intensified. And, as a result, each year, the dedicated letter carriers of the Postal Service are asked to carry less mail to more households and businesses nationwide. In part, that is because the Postal Service is operating under laws written 35 years ago--long before anyone had ever heard of the Internet. This legislation will modernize the Postal Service, giving it the resources and flexibility it needs to manage its operations and set fair prices. The bill will help the Postal Service cut through the bureaucratic red tape and allow it to act more like the businesses it must compete against. In addition to providing a more streamlined rate-setting process that will allow the Postal Service to make business decisions quickly, the bill also will allow the Postal Service to enter into partnerships with second- and third-class mailers, while preserving the jobs of those at postal sorting and processing centers. I welcome these improvements, although I anticipate more will need to be done to balance the mailing industry's need for price certainty with unanticipated or extraordinary fiscal needs of the Postal Service. The bill will alleviate a $27 billion burden by limiting the Postal Service's responsibility to pay the benefits of veterans who also worked in the Postal Service. To be clear, this provision does not limit the benefits of our brave veterans who, after military service, went to work for the Postal Service. This bill simply says that the U.S. Treasury must pay veterans benefits, and the Postal Service must pay postal benefits. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is also good for one of the Postal Service's best assets--its human capital. I am particularly pleased that this bill preserves the right of more than 500,000 postal workers and letter carriers to bargain collectively. These dedicated men and women work in processing centers, they work in local post offices, and they work in our neighborhoods delivering the mail to our doorsteps each day. They are the reason that the postal service has a 96 percent on-time delivery record for first-class mail. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It will make the Postal Service leaner and more efficient, while preserving the collective bargaining rights of its workers. And it will continue the legacy of universal service. Since the birth of this nation, the United States Postal Service has been committed to delivering the mail to every single household in the country--142 million in all today. The daily mail delivery is something that many Americans look forward to, and this bill will ensure that the Postal Service has the resources it needs to maintain that commitment well into the future. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, there is no greater responsibility of government than to protect its people from harm. That was the intent of the PATRIOT Act--legislation authored a month after the September 11th attacks 4 years ago. And like any bill quickly passed into law, particularly one this expansive, the PATRIOT Act has worked well in some respects, but less so in others, and in some cases, with unintended consequences. All that is understandable, but making the entire bill work well with the benefit of 4 years hindsight ought to be the challenge before us today. But this legislation is not the entire PATRIOT Act passed into law 4 years ago--it is only 16 provisions of that law, most of which were set to expire or sunset. This year, we are failing to consider some of the most ineffective and overreaching provisions of the PATRIOT Act. We are making only the most modest changes to others. And, in the case of the so-called ``sneak and peek'' provision, we are actually making matters worse. Indeed, under this bill, judges can order searches or seizures without telling the targets for up to 6 months after the search. This bill also expands authority to access medical records and bookstore and library records. And even though it allows recipients of such subpoenas to consult an attorney, there is no requirement that law enforcement show that the information they are seeking is even part of a terrorism investigation. And while this provision will be revisited again in 10 years, almost all the others are made permanent--access to e-mail and Internet records, wiretap authority, the disclosure of Internet records in emergencies, the use of search warrants to seize voice mail. These are all fundamental matters of privacy--privacy we would all agree terrorists are not entitled to, but the average American is. By insisting 14 of the 16 expiring provisions in this bill be made permanent, we are essentially abdicating our responsibility as Members of Congress to make sure we strike the right balance of giving law enforcement the tools they need to catch terrorists while still upholding the basic rights to which every American is entitled. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a matter of security--of homeland security, national security and the security of every American's right to privacy. Let us honor our obligations and uphold each of those responsibilities.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, which prevents the House from considering several very important amendments to the State Department Authorization Act. Among them is one that I offered that would have made the Navy's Marine One helicopter program subject to existing export control laws--that would also have limited the ability of foreign companies working on the Marine One program to sell the technology used in the President's helicopter to countries like Iran and other threats to our national security. Unfortunately, this is a very real possibility. In January, the Marine One contract was awarded to a European consortium led by Finmeccanica Italy and its British subsidiary, Agusta Westland, and only a month later, both companies appeared at an aerospace tradeshow-- in Iran. The American president of Finmeccanica's U.S. division explained his company's presence in Iran by saying ``I think they're our enemy,'' going on to explain, quote, ``In Europe, they don't call [Iran] the enemy''--as if that somehow makes it acceptable to sell them our most advanced aerospace technology. The notion that the companies building the president's helicopter, working with sensitive American technology, may be doing business with a member of what the president himself called the ``Axis of Evil'' should give us all very serious concern. Do we want these companies to be able to easily transfer Marine One technology to Iran or other countries? Because that is a very real possibility given the contract the Navy has signed. Mr. Speaker, few images capture the U.S. Presidency like that of the Marine One helicopter landing on the White House lawn, the president emerging from under the blades--it is ingrained in our collective national consciousness. Even 7 months after this decision was made, I still find it hard to believe that the next generation of the president's helicopters will be largely built not by American but foreign workers, with 36 percent of the work on the Marine One program performed in England and Italy. Indeed, the Navy expects to procure 32 aircraft, the first seven of which will be constructed almost entirely in England. Only the final assembly will be done in the United States. This ought to be a matter of our national pride. While I believe that all of this work should be done in the United States, my amendment would have at least ensured that the work on this program--funded by the U.S. taxpayer, but done outside the United States--will not fall into the hands of state sponsors of terrorism. To be clear, I have no quarrel with Lockheed-Martin or Bell Helicopters, who are partners with Finmeccanica and Agusta Westland in this program. Like Sikorsky, they make many fine products upon which our troops rely, and they employ thousands of hard-working men and women whose love of country is unrivaled. But, Mr. Speaker, the decision to award a large portion of this contract to European companies is deeply misguided and could have an adverse impact on our national security. Mr. Speaker, the Marine One helicopter is expected to have the most advanced parts, security features, communications equipment and survivalibity of any rotorcraft in our military's arsenal. And to allow that technology and equipment to fall into the hands of threats to our national security is a risk that none of use should take. Yet that is exactly what the House Republican leadership has forced us into doing. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule so that the House may have the opportunity to consider this critically important issue.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join the entire Hirschorn family as they celebrate the life and accomplishments of their oldest living relative, Leo Gold. Today, the Hirschorn family, nearly 150 strong and from all corners of the world, have gathered to pay tribute to Leo not only for being a wonderful member of the family, but for his many contributions to his Nation and community. Leo Gold has had a full life. He has served in our Nation's armed forces, married and raised a wonderful family of his own, worked as a stockbroker by trade, and has spent countless hours volunteering with a myriad of service and community organizations. His life is the very reflection of what every community member should be. Like so many of his generation, Leo served in the United States Army during World War II. A member of the Engineers' Corps, Leo was one of the hundreds of remarkable soldiers who landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day. He diligently served his country with dignity and integrity from 1943 until the end of the war. Today, I stand to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Leo Gold for his outstanding service to our country. It is veterans, like Leo, whose stories will never allow future generations to forget one of the free world's greatest victories. Leo spent his professional career as a stockbroker and continues to own a seat on the American Stock Exchange. He has been happily married to his wife, Beatrice, for 63 years, raising two children, Helaine and Harold. Today, they continue to see their small family grow with three grandchildren, Heidi, Keith, and Sandra, as well as one great- grandchild, Maya. Throughout the years, it has been his family which has brought him such great joy and I find it a fitting tribute that his extended family has gathered to honor him today. Veteran, successful businessman, and devoted husband, father, and grandfather--one would not find it hard to believe that Leo has also been an active member of his community, volunteering his time and efforts to make a difference in the lives of others. Before retiring to Florida, Leo lived in Great Neck, NY, where he was deeply involved with B'nai Brith and his synagogue Temple Israel. Now, as he and Bea enjoy their retirement years, they can be found volunteering for the Jewish Federation, among other organizations. In fact, Leo participated in the Big Brother Program just a few years ago, acting as a mentor and friend to children in need. Through his many philanthropic activities, Leo has quietly touched the lives of many--making a real difference in their lives. Our communities and our country would not be the same without individuals like Leo Gold who so willingly dedicate themselves to serving and protecting others. It is an honor and a privilege for me to stand today to join his wife, Bea, children Helaine and Harold, grandchildren Heidi, Keith, and Sandra, and the entire Hirschorn family as they pay tribute to Leo Gold--an outstanding citizen and community leader. My heartfelt congratulations on this very special occasion-- what an inspiration you are. Mazel Tov.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Let me just try to correct some inaccuracies. First of all, once again, this amendment does not deal with existing contracts. It is contracts in the future. We are not discussing the Homeland Security bill. We are discussing the Transportation Treasury bill, so this does not affect what happened with Homeland Security. I might also add under the Homeland Security bill, this ban is in place and we voted on it in this institution. Secondly, my colleagues have talked about the JOBS Act. Very quickly, the JOBS Act does not solve the existing problem that we have here today. Corporations who are paying their taxes in the U.S. to the full amount. Let us take a look at what Accenture is doing. Accenture earned $503 million in the United States in 2004, up from $243 million in 2002. They reduced their tax liability to $135.5 million from $241 million. Their tax burden is going down because they have set up very intricate and elaborate structures in order to reduce the amount of taxes owed in the United States. That is what this is about. They are free to go to tax haven. They should not get any contracts because they are lowering their tax obligation to the United States at a time of a budget crisis and a time of war.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. This amendment would prevent the Departments and agencies under this bill from using any funds to contract with American companies which have created shell corporations in tax-haven countries in order to reduce their U.S. taxes. The Department of Homeland Security is operating under a similar contracting ban. Recent data shows that despite costing our government $5 billion in lost revenue, corporate expatriates reaped $1.4 billion in Federal contracts in 2002 alone. This in the middle of a budget crisis. In every appropriations bill we have considered this year, we have heard the same refrain: we have done the best we could under the circumstances. But this budget crisis did not create itself; it is a direct result of the budget and tax choices of this Congress; and as a result, this bill lacks sufficient funding for public transit, Amtrak, housing. Perhaps if we did more to discourage companies from setting up post offices overseas to reduce their tax burden here, we would have more funding available for these critical investments. Four of our top 100 Federal contractors have incorporated in tax- haven countries. One of them actually holds a contract with the IRS. The agency charged with collecting taxes willingly contracted with a company that is determined to avoid paying them. These companies are not overtaxed. In fact, effective corporate tax rates have fallen by 20 percent since 2001, even as pretax profits jumped 26 percent. Between 2001 and 2003, our 275 largest companies paid taxes totaling about half of the 35 percent corporate tax rate. I should emphasize that this amendment will not affect existing contracts. It will not affect existing contracts. It simply ensures that in the future, we will favor good corporate citizens with government contracts, rather than rewarding companies for moving overseas and putting tax-paying American companies at a permanent competitive disadvantage. Corporate expatriate companies have made a clear choice: leave the country and not pay their taxes. It is up to us to make the choice and set a standard. If they are going to manipulate loopholes in our Tax Code, they should no longer be able to reap the benefit of current government contracts. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me just first say once again, and I will say it as many times as we have to. This does not affect existing contracts. It does not affect existing contracts. Second, the Department of Homeland Security is operating under a similar contracting ban now. We are not talking solely about one company. There are some 25 or 26 companies who, in fact, have reincorporated in tax haven countries in order to be able to diminish their tax obligation to the United States. Accenture, in fact, has its roots back to 1953, as part of the Illinois-based Arthur Andersen Company. It incorporated in Bermuda in 2001. Their CEO was based in Dallas. And the fact of the matter is that they are now having it both ways. I would make the point that this comes down to a question of values. Do you stand with corporations who have abandoned our country in a time of war, who have gone through these elaborate contortions to reduce their U.S. tax burdens, or do you stand with the companies who, in fact, have been good corporate citizens? They are paying their taxes, they are employing Americans, and they are living up to their obligations of their country. Now, as it has been said by my colleagues, these companies can go and do what it is that they would like. And if they want to diminish their tax burden here, we should not allow it, but we do at the moment. But the fact is, should we then add insult to injury to other American corporations and to American citizens by allowing these companies to get billions of dollars in Federal contracts? Again, it does not affect existing contracts. We have a historic low in Federal corporate income taxes. The fact is these folks set up these mailboxes overseas. That they are overtaxed is not, in fact, the case. It is time we tell these corporate expatriates the free ride is over. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, none of us come here to defend the Cuban Government or its historically poor human rights record and repressive system of government. But 46 years of the same failed policy have accomplished nothing. And the more we normalize relations with Cuba, the faster Fidel Castro will lose his grip on the Cuban people. This is why we should be making it easier for Americans to go to Cuba. Yet we seem to be going in the opposite direction. Rather than being committed to political openness and the free exchange of goods and ideas--powerful forces--we are clamping down on our own citizens--in the process, preventing any liberalization of the Castro regime and penalizing law-abiding Americans. Last week, I met with U.S. Army Sgt. Carlos Lazo, who has two sons in Cuba, one critically ill. This is a man who won the Bronze Star for fighting in Iraq, but our government will not let him visit his own son. Why? Because he traveled to Cuba last year. Even the Cuban government has said Sgt. Lazo's son can come here to visit his father. So, Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of human rights and economic freedom. Limiting the rights of Americans to travel back to Cuba, or to send money home to their families is no way to bring change to Cuba. In committee, we already acknowledged as much from the business end. There, we recognized how much progress we have made in the last few years on the economic front, with agriculture sales growing to almost $400 million from almost nothing 4 years earlier. That is why the committee unanimously agreed to loosen traveling restrictions to Cuba with respect to agribusiness. There is no reason we should not do the same for these families. Now is a time for compassion. Particularly when we are talking about men and women in the United States military uniform, who are defending our freedom overseas, we should show them that their Congress recognizes that freedom begins at home. Support this amendment.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment does not affect existing contracts. That is something people would like to portend to our colleagues, but it is not the fact. And later in the conversation, I will talk about dispelling some of the inaccuracies that have been talked about this afternoon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, as our nation's 76 million baby boomers near retirement age, the number of Americans over age 65 will double to 70 million--one-fifth of the population. Americans older than 85 represent the fastest growing segment of this population and membership in this once exclusive demographic group is projected to grow from four million Americans today to an estimated 19 million by 2050. Unfortunately, our health care system is ill prepared to handle the strain of this enormous senior population, largely because we have a critical shortage of geriatric physicians. Fewer than 9,000 geriatricians practice in the United States, less than half of the current need. By 2030, the shortfall of geriatricians may reach 25,000 doctors. Approximately, 2,500 psychiatrists have received added qualifications in geriatric psychiatry; yet 4,000 to 5,000 geriatric psychiatrists are needed to provide patient care. According to estimates from the President's Commission on Mental Health, at the current rate of approximately 80 new geriatric psychiatrists graduating each year and an estimated 3 percent attrition, there will be approximately 2,640 geriatric psychiatrists by the year 2030, or one per 5,682 older adults with a psychiatric disorder. America must plan for the burdens the baby boomers demographic shift will place on our health care system and health care providers. Our first step is ensuring the country has an adequate number of well- trained physicians who specialize in geriatrics. Today, I am introducing legislation along with my colleague Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, that will encourage more doctors to become certified in geriatrics. The Geriatricians Loan Forgiveness Act would amend the Public Health Service Act to include each year of fellowship training in geriatric medicine or geriatric psychiatry as a year of obligated service under the National Health Corps Loan Repayment Program. Specifically it would forgive $35,000 of education debt incurred by medical students for each year of advanced training required to obtain a certificate of added qualifications in geriatric medicine or psychiatry. Geriatric medicine is the foundation of a comprehensive health plan for our most vulnerable seniors. Geriatrics, by focusing on assessment and care coordination, promotes preventive care and improves patients' quality of life by allowing them greater independence and eliminating unnecessary and costly trips to the hospital or institutions. A fellowship in geriatric psychiatry provides intensive training in the biological and psychological aspects of normal aging, the psychiatric impact of acute and chronic physical illness, and the biological and psycho-social aspects of the pathology of primary psychiatric disturbances of older age. Thus, these specialists are equipped to diagnose and treat these complex conditions among our frailest citizens. Mr. Speaker, this kind of specialized care is complicated and demanding. Many doctors inclined to study and practice geriatrics are dissuaded from doing so because treating the elderly takes more time and carries financial disincentives for doctors. Medical training takes time, and it is important that we take steps now to alleviate the shortages in geriatrics that are only going to get worse in the next ten years and beyond. This legislation is a commonsense approach and a cost-effective investment, and I hope it will receive the support of the House.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the Department of Labor from using Federal funds to enforce or carry out item 6B of the settlement agreement between the wage and hour division of the Department and Wal-Mart Stores, the provision providing Wal-Mart with 15 days of advance notice prior to any audit or investigation. This amendment is important to ensuring the safety of our children. On January 6, the Department of Labor entered into an agreement with Wal-Mart to settle violations of child labor laws in 3 States: Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Arkansas. It found that Wal-Mart employed 85 minors, ages 16 and 17, who performed prohibited activities, including operating cardboard balers and chain saws, which are considered particularly hazardous jobs, jobs Wal-Mart and other employers cannot legally permit anyone under the age of 18 to perform. For these violations, the Labor Department fined Wal-Mart, a company with $285 billion of revenues last year, a total of $135,540. Perhaps the most egregious part of the agreement is the provision, 6B, that grants Wal-Mart 15 days' advance notice before the government investigates any wage-and-hour law complaints, notice that applies not just to child labor complaints in the three cited States but all Wal- Mart stores nationwide. Wal-Mart has a history of prior child labor violations. In 2000, Wal- Mart was found to have 1,436 violations in 20 Maine stores. Last year, Wal-Mart's own internal audit found 1,371 violations of child labor laws between 1997 and 1999. Granting 2 weeks' advance notice is essentially daring repeated child labor law violators like Wal-Mart to conceal any further violations. And if we need any proof of that, I would point my colleagues to the weekend papers in Connecticut which cite a State investigation that found 11 more violations of child labor laws at three of our Wal-Mart stores. Three violations involved the store not even bothering to check the age of their workers. It is clear the settlement is not stopping Wal-Mart from violating child labor laws. In fact, the Governor of Connecticut has ordered periodic, unannounced visits by State inspectors at Wal-Mart stores to ensure that any future violations are promptly revealed and addressed. Why can the Federal Government not do the same? If a State government can get tough on a child labor violator, one that happens to be our Nation's largest private employer, there is no reason the Federal Government should not be able to do so as well. Congress needs to send Wal-Mart a message that companies who violate child labor laws will not be tolerated. Our society long ago stopped tolerating the kind of sweatshop conditions that my mother worked in when I was growing up. It is time that this administration did so as well. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 2005, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me correct an error that was made. The very fact is that the amendment would only restrict funds for the provision that gives Wal- Mart the 15 days' advance notice before the Department investigates any wage-and-hour law complaints. It does not abrogate the entire settlement. That is what Wal-Mart would like to have everyone believe. It is just the 15-day notice. The fact is that this is not a typical agreement. None of the agreements that the Department of Labor made with Genesis Health Ventures, Footlocker, and Sears provided a blanket promise of advance notice nationwide to all their stores. This one does. It is a sweetheart deal with Wal-Mart. Nor did they provide for a 10-day window for the company to come into compliance in the event of child labor violations. These companies were expected to fix the problem immediately or to face serious penalties. This is hardly standard procedure. That is why the Labor Department's own Inspector General has been investigating how this settlement was negotiated. We are talking about the safety of our children. That is why the amendment is necessary, and that is why I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

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

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, early in the twentieth century, Frank Pepe, an Italian immigrant living in New Haven, created the first American pizza by putting tomatoes on top of old bake-shop bread. The creation was so popular that he opened America's first pizzeria on Wooster Street--and so the local legend of Pepe's pizza is recounted. Today, I am proud to stand and join the thousands of Pepe's fans across the Nation in extending my sincere congratulations to Frank Pepe Pizzeria Napoletana and the Pepe Family as they celebrate their 80th Anniversary--a remarkable milestone for this New Haven institution! When Frank and Filomena opened their pizzeria in 1925, pizza was not considered a delicacy or a treat that you found on every street corner--in fact, it was a peasant meal. With hard work, countless hours, and dedication the Pepe's created a successful business that carried themselves and their extended family through the Great Depression and allowed them to raise their two children, Elizabeth and Serafina (Betty and Sarah). Throughout the years, Pepe's popularity grew outside the Italian-American community of Wooster Street and for four generations enthusiastic customers have returned with their own families. The excitement and loyalty of their customers has never wavered--a truth that is reflected in the long lines of anxious patrons that are a constant on Wooster Street. In fact, Pepe's has even inspired other pizza entrepreneurs, the first of which was Frank's nephew Sal Consiglio who opened his own restaurant, Sally's, just steps from his uncle's restaurant. Years later another former employee opened Randy's Wooster Street Pizza Shop. When Frank Pepe Pizzeria Napoletana first opened in 1925, it was the dream of Frank and his wife Filomena to have a successful neighborhood business where friends and neighbors could gather. Frank and Filomena could have only dreamed of the success their small business has come to be. Four generations later, the business is still run by family and the walls are still adorned with family photos as well as those of Bill Murray, Meryl Streep, and Matthew Broderick--just a few of the stars who have dined at Pepe's in the past. Their pizza is legendary and the ambiance is unforgettable--enjoyed by neighbors and celebrities alike. However, it is not just the pizza that make Pepe's such a special part of our community. It is the history and community spirit of Frank Pepe and his family that has made it a New Haven landmark. Today, as they mark their 80th anniversary, it is not just a celebration of a successful family business, but of a thriving community treasure. It is with the greatest pleasure that I rise today to join Frank Pepe's children, Elizabeth and Serafina, grandchildren, Anthony, Francis, Lisa, Bernadette, Genevieve, Jennifer, and Gary, as well as their family, friends, and extended family of customers and fans as they celebrate this very special occasion.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, in honor of their valor, courage and sacrifice, Sergeant Charles Todd Caldwell. 1. Staff Sergeant Cameron B. Sarno 2. Staff Sergeant Joseph Camara 3. Private First Class Christopher A. Sisson 4. Technical Sergeant Bruce E. Brown 5. Specialist Jarrett B. Thompson 6. Specialist Ryan G. Carlock 7. Staff Sergeant Joseph E. Robsky Jr. 8. Sergeant Henry Ybarra III 9. Master Sergeant Kevin N. Morehead 10. Sergeant First Class William M. Bennett 11. Sergeant Trevor A. Blumberg 12. Specialist Alyssa R. Peterson 13. Staff Sergeant Kevin C. Kimmerly 14. Specialist James C. Wright 15. Sergeant Anthony O. Thompson 16. Specialist Richard Arriaga 17. Captain Brian R. Faunce 18. Staff Sergeant Frederick L. Miller Jr. 19. Sergeant David Travis Friedric 20. Specialist Lunsford B. Brown II 21. Specialist Paul J. Sturino 22. Specialist Michael Andrade 23. Captain Robert L. Lucero 24. Sergeant First Class Robert E. Rooney 25. Specialist Kyle G. Thomas 26. Sergeant Darrin K. Potter 27. Staff Sergeant Christopher E. Cutchall 28. Sergeant Andrew Joseph Baddick 29. Specialist Dustin K. McGaugh 30. Specialist Simeon Hunte 31. Private First Class Analaura Esparza Gutierrez 32. Command Sergeant James Blankenbecler 33. Private First Class Charles M. Sims 34. Specialist James H. Pirtle 35. Second Lieutenant Richard Torres 36. Private First Class Kerry D. Scott 37. Specialist Spencer Timothy Karol 38. Staff Sergeant Christopher W. Swisher 39. Specialist Joseph C. Norquist 40. Specialist James E. Powell 41. Private First Class Stephen E. Wyatt 42. Specialist Donald L. Wheeler 43. Private Benjamin L. Freeman 44. Specialist Douglas J. Weismantle 45. Private First Class Jose Casanova 46. Lieutenant Colonel Kim S. Orlando 47. Corporal Sean R. Grilley 48. Staff Sergeant Joseph P. Bellavia 49. Private First Class John D. Hart 50. First Lieutenant David R. Bernstein 51. Staff Sergeant Paul J. Johnson 52. Private First Class Paul J. Bueche 53. Specialist John P. Johnson 54. Captain John R. Teal 55. Sergeant Michael S. Hancock 56. Specialist Jose L. Mora 57. Specialist Artimus D. Brassfield 58. Staff Sergeant Jamie L. Huggins 59. Lieutenant Colonel Charles H. Buehring 60. Private First Class Rachel K. Bosveld 61. Private First Class Steven Acosta 62. Sergeant Aubrey D. Bell 63. Private Jonathan I. Falaniko 64. Specialist Isaac Campoy 65. Sergeant Michael Paul Barrera 66. Private Algernon Adams 67. Second Lieutenant Todd J. Bryant 68. Specialist Maurice J. Johnson 69. First Lieutenant Joshua C. Hurley 70. Private First Class Karina S. Lau 71. Staff Sergeant Paul A. Velasquez 72. Private First Class Anthony D. Dagostino 73. First Lieutenant Brian D. Slavenas 74. Chief Warrant Officer Bruce A. Smith 75. First Lieutenant Benjamin J. Colgan 76. Staff Sergeant Joe Nathan Wilson 77. Sergeant Ross A. Pennanen 78. Sergeant Ernest G. Bucklew 79. Sergeant Joel Perez 80. Specialist Frances M. Vega 81. Specialist Darius T. Jennings 82. Sergeant Keelan L. Moss 83. Specialist Brian H. Penisten

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join the many who have gathered to join Local 34 Federation of University Employees, UNITE-HERE International Union as they celebrate the 20th Anniversary of the signing of their first contract with Yale University. Two decades after their inception, Local 34 continues to provide a strong voice to the clerical workers, financial assistants, research technicians, and medical assistants they represent. In the early nineteen eighties, across America there was a change in what was the traditional role of women in the workplace. Increasingly, women were not simply working for a little extra money, but were becoming career women--working to support themselves and their families. As this transition moved forward, clerical and technical employees at Yale University--positions a majority of which were held by women--began to meet and discuss possible opportunities for them to obtain such daring goals as equal pay for equal work and the availability of a pension plan that would be meaningful in their retirement. They began to look for similar employment protections that were offered to other employees at Yale University. It was from these early discussions that the Local 34 was organized. With assistance from their brethren at Local 35, which represents the service and maintenance workers at the University, and Local 217, who represent hotel and restaurant workers in Connecticut and Rhode Island, the effort to establish Local 34 began. In May of 1983, clerical and technical workers at Yale took the historic step of voting to form Local 34. Their mission, as it still stands today, was simple. They wanted to protect and advance the interests of their membership. During their first negotiations with Yale University, Local 34 fought for the concept of ``comparable work,'' and focused not only on the specific issues of salaries and benefits, but on the larger social issues of women's and civil rights. With diligence and unwavering commitment to their cause, Local 34 and Yale University endured nineteen months of discussion, a total of ninety-two negotiating sessions, and a 10-week strike to sign their first contract. This significant moment not only provided clerical and technical workers with real changes in wages, benefits, and pensions, but, for the first time, these employees had a real voice on the job. Twenty years later, Local 34 continues to serve the interests of their membership and in its work to improve the University and community as well. As they celebrate this remarkable milestone in their history, I am proud to stands and extend my sincere congratulations to the leadership and membership of Local 34 Federation of University Employees, UNITE--HERE International Union--past and present--for their many invaluable contributions to our community. I have and continue to be proud to work with them in these efforts which make such a difference in the lives of our hardworking men and women and their families.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join the many family, friends, and community members who have gathered to pay tribute to an outstanding member of our community and a dear friend, the Honorable Vincent J. Tonucci. Retiring just last year after 9 terms as the State Representative for Connecticut's 104th District, Vinny has dedicated a lifetime of hard work and dedication to the Naugatuck Valley. In his 18 years as a State Representative, Vinny has a long and proud history of legislative accomplishments for his District and the state of Connecticut. Sponsoring and introducing legislation aimed at improving the quality of life for children, defending the environment, protecting health care for seniors, and providing for local economic development, Vinny was dedicated to ensuring that a variety of important issues were debated and addressed. Throughout his nine terms in Connecticut's General Assembly, Vinny developed a distinguished reputation as a public official--accessible to his constituents and fighting for their best interests. His career has been a reflection of all that an elected representative should be. Vinny's remarkable commitment to community and public service extends well beyond his time in the General Assembly. Prior to his election to Connecticut's House of Representatives, he served on the Board of Alderman in the City of Derby as well as a member of the Naugatuck Valley Capitol Planning Committee. Among the many local service organizations which benefit from his good work, Vinny is a member of the Webster Hose Fire Department, St. Michael's Society of Ansonia, Derby Elk's Lodge, and the Valley Association of Realtors. He also serves on the consulting committee at Emmett O'Brien Regional Vocational School, the Board of Directors of the Lower Naugatuck Valley Boys & Girls Club, the Birmingham Group of Ansonia, and the Valley United Way. Vinny is a tireless advocate--always ready to lend a helping hand and a powerful voice on behalf of the businesses, organizations, residents, and families of the Naugatuck Valley. Through his good work as an elected official and community volunteer, his warmth, compassion, and generosity made a difference not only in the communities that he represented, but for families across Connecticut. For his many years of outstanding public service, I am proud to stand today to join his wife, Cindy, daughters, Cara and Christa, family, friends, constituents, and the communities of Derby and Ansonia in extending my sincere thanks and appreciation to the Honorable Vincent J. Tonucci. He has left an indelible mark on this community and a legacy that will serve as an inspiration for generations to come.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join the Reverend Barbara Cheney and the congregation of the Episcopal Church of St. Paul and St. James as they celebrate the restoration of this historic New Haven treasure. This is a very special occasion for the community and this New Haven institution. Standing on the corner of Chapel and Olive Streets in New Haven, St. Paul and St. James has anchored the Wooster Square neighborhood for more than 175 years. Originally, the church was designed with two wooden towers, however, as the years past, it became evident that these towers would need replacing. In 1893 the west tower was rebuilt in stone and the wooden top of the east tower was removed--creating the church's distinctive look with one short tower and one tall. Recently, the need came once again to restore the west tower and it is the completion of that renovation which the community celebrates today with a rededication ceremony. Our churches play a vital role in our communities--providing people with a place to turn to for comfort when they are most in need. In the nearly two centuries of its history, there have been many who have worshiped within the halls of St. Paul and St. James and many who have found peace and strength in the outstretched arms of the congregation. Beyond the spiritual guidance it has provided, St. Paul and St. James is also home to several successful outreach ministries. With congregants from New Haven, West Haven, Hamden, and Branford, it is an interracial, diverse congregation with a strong emphasis on social justice and advocacy. For the last twenty-five years, the church has run the Loaves and Fishes Food Closet, one of the largest food banks in the state. Other programs include a Clothes Closet, an alliance with the Neighborhood Health Project, a Children's Mission, and an active membership in the faith-based grass roots organizing effort, Elm City Congregants Organized. It is through all of these efforts that St. Paul and St. James touches the lives of thousands and makes a real difference in their lives. With the completed renovations, the west tower is now lit at night and clearly visible from the New Haven Green--the heart of the City of New Haven. It serves as a shining beacon of hope for those most in need. For its many spiritual and community contributions, I am proud to stand today to pay tribute to the Episcopal Church of St. Paul and St. James and its congregation as they celebrate this very special occasion. It is my hope that they will continue to serve our community for many more years to come.