Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, that is right. And they said there is a serious problem of hunger in the United States. They came back to Washington, and Democratic Members and Republican Members came together to say that this challenge--we have to address this crisis of hunger in the United States, and therein lies the genesis of nutrition programs crafted by men and women who came here who understood what their job was and they understood what the power of this institution is. Unfortunately, we do not have those giants in this body on both sides of the aisle--the people who have left--and I am so proud of our Democrats who have stood together on this farm bill and said: No. This is wrong. We are not going to be complicit in leaving millions of people hungry in the United States. Robert Kennedy took a commission across this country and went and found children and babies who were hungry and came back, and, again, on a bipartisan basis, helped to craft the programs that we have today. These were men and women who understand and understood why they were elected to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. Unfortunately, so many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have either forgotten their purpose here or never understood their purpose here.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I tracked in my research the Food Stamp program and child tax credits, bipartisan; equal pay for equal work, bipartisan; Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, when the votes came, they were done in a bipartisan way, the votes were bipartisan. Now we seem to have lost that sense that the challenges are there for us to take on, on both sides of the aisle, to put aside differences for that common good. That is what we need to get back to. That what we are not about is humiliating people and demeaning people so that we think that that will make them go out and try to work to do a better thing, to tell them that there is no hope for them when they look to Washington and to government. Mr. Speaker, that is a slap in the face to the years and the work that so many on both sides of the aisle did in Congress, and that is what we have to get back to. That is what should be entrusted to us, as we look at each of these areas that people face in our country. People want jobs. We define ourselves by our jobs. We get our self- confidence from our jobs. People want to work. Your family looks up to you when you have a job. And, when you don't, you are embarrassed to tell your kids: I don't have a job. These great people who served said: We need to come together to work on these issues. For me, that is what I want us to get back to. That is what I try to work at, as you do, every single day. To have people understand that, in times of difficulty, we are accountable to one another, and we have a responsibility. We are not a society that said it is every man or woman for himself or herself, particularly in challenging times. That is what our social safety net is all about. It reflects the great values of this country. I believe we can get back there. I believe that we can. We were there before, and we are going to get back there again. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Raskin for what he is doing here tonight.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the primary sponsor of both H.R. 1587 and H.R. 4199, bills originally introduced by Representative Slaughter of New York, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed Roll Call vote number 143 regarding the ``Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of the Taxpayer First Act and the 21st Century IRS Act.'' Had I been present, I would have voted No. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed Roll Call vote number 144 regarding the ``Rule providing for consideration of the Taxpayer First Act and the ``21st Century IRS Act.'' Had I been present, I would have voted No. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed Roll Call vote number 145 regarding the ``21st Century IRS Act.'' Had I been present, I would have voted Yes. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed Roll Call vote number 146 regarding the ``Taxpayer First Act.'' Had I been present, I would have voted Yes. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed Roll Call vote number 147 regarding the ``Justice for Victims of IRS Scams and Identity Theft Act.'' Had I been present, I would have voted Yes.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed Roll Call vote number 142 regarding the ``Protecting Children from Identity Theft Act.'' Had I been present, I would have voted Yes.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the recently released farm bill for 2018. Congressional Republicans and the Trump administration want to unravel the social safety net, and according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this farm bill cuts total Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits--that is the Food Stamp program--by more than $23 billion. Its stricter work requirements could affect 5 million Americans who receive food stamps in this country--children, seniors, the disabled, and, yes, veterans--even though most recipients who can work already do. All told, 2 million would lose some or all of their benefits. To my colleagues I say, these are not just numbers on a page; these are people who are in need. At the same time, Republicans want to expand the ill-targeted commodity programs. They will maintain crop insurance subsidies that have no eligibility requirements or limits. This farm bill is not reform; it is hypocrisy. No one in this Chamber goes hungry. They have three squares or more. I urge my colleagues to defend the Food Stamp program and oppose this farm bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this budget amendment. You know, when the majority forced through their $2.3 trillion tax cut for corporations and the wealthiest Americans, they did not give a second thought to the deficit. Eighty-three percent, by the way, of the cuts went to the top 1 percent, the richest families in the country, the richest corporations, including President Trump. Now the majority wants our children, they want seniors, they want working families, middle class families to cover the cost. This amendment would likely decimate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, funds for rebuilding America's infrastructure, veterans' pensions, and, yes, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, by 2028, this amendment could trigger cuts of up to $1.7 trillion to Medicare and $2.6 trillion to Social Security. The Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons, AARP, has said of this amendment: ``The lack of a dependable Social Security and Medicare benefit would be devastating for millions of Americans.'' This amendment would endanger our economy, it would starve the government of revenues, it ties Congress' hands in a national or economic crisis. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said this amendment would, ``make recessions longer and deeper by forcing spending cuts or tax increases when the economy is weak.'' Over 270 service, health, child welfare, labor, environmental, good- government organizations like Paralyzed Veterans of America, AFL-CIO, the NEA, the NAACP oppose this measure. We need to oppose it. With this amendment, President Trump and my colleagues in the majority want to leave families and workers holding the bag for their $2.3 trillion gift. The tax cut was a gift to corporations and the richest Americans. It is a mistaken policy and a cynical gimmick. It is a coverup for completely ignoring the budget busting that they were engaged and involved in with the tax bill. This amendment is bad for workers, bad for families, bad for our Nation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, and I want to thank him for his commitment and passion to this issue, and for organizing this effort tonight, and to join with him and our colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) to focus on the issue of income inequality. And for those of us who serve in this institution, we have a moral obligation, a moral responsibility, to help those who are in punishing poverty. It was more than 50 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson and a bipartisan Congress worked together to create the social safety net. And that social safety net is representative of the values of this great country where it says that it is not every man or woman for himself or herself, but it is our shared responsibility for one another, our accountability for one another, and particularly in times of need. Their priority--their priority--bipartisan Members of this institution, was to lift families out of poverty. Their tools? Programs to help end hunger, creating good-paying jobs, provide affordable healthcare, guarantee a quality education for all of our children. But, unfortunately, and I will be specific here, we have an administration, we have a President, and we have a Speaker of this body, Mr. Ryan, who are not fighting a war on poverty. They are fighting a war on working families and the poor. President Trump and Speaker Ryan do not value the beneficiaries of these programs. They do not value these people's lives, unless they happen to have an estate or a corporate spending account. They want corporations and the wealthiest Americans to see bigger profits, even if the poor suffer greater pain. Republicans have repeatedly gone after the nutrition programs, the food stamp program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; programs that help people bounce back from tough times and to retire with dignity after a life of hard work. When I did research for a book that was published last year, ``The Least Among Us: Waging the Battle for the Vulnerable,'' what I found is, when it came to nutrition programs, who were the people who were engaged and involved? Bob Dole, Republican from Kansas. George McGovern, Democrat. When you looked at the child tax credits, George Bush was for a child tax credit, as well as Jay Rockefeller. Democrats and Republicans who came together on these issues for refundable tax credits for families to help lift them out of poverty. When you take a look at a whole variety, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, while there may have been differences in the Chamber as they debated them, but when it came to the vote, they were passed on a bipartisan basis because, it is my view, that the folks who served there understood why they were elected and what this institution is about and how it provides opportunity for people in this country. That is what our job is here, is to provide opportunity for the people of this country. It is about educating needy children, feeding hungry families, supporting our veterans, and shielding seniors from poverty. Those are not the great achievements that the other side of the aisle looks at. They are grating to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It is about the view that these are the takers, not the makers; that they relax in a hammock and don't want to get up and go out to work, demeaning hardworking people in this country. The majority in this body and in the Senate and in the White House are forcing everyday Americans to pay for their $2 trillion tax cut for corporations and for the wealthiest Americans, and now they want to use this tax cut scam as an excuse to gut services and investments that are critical to our families and our communities. I just want to go back for a second, because I was here. This was on the food stamp program. I was here for the Contract with America. Wow. 1995. Do you know where it went? Let's abolish the school lunch program. Let's block grant the food stamp program. Let Medicare wither on the vine. The fact is life hasn't changed that much. There is a consistency about some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Yesterday, under the guise of reviewing welfare, the Trump administration is once again targeting the most vulnerable among us. The President's latest executive order would make it more difficult for people to access services: healthcare, nutrition, housing. A tax on our social safety net does not reflect our values, nor does it make sense at all. The biggest issue that people are facing today is that they are in jobs that just do not pay them enough money to live on. So we must do more to end poverty and to end income inequality, and that does begin with wages. Now, the social safety net has helped millions of Americans. According to Brookings Institution, the poverty rate has declined by more than one-third since 1967, in large part due to the success of our safety net programs. It continues to help millions. In an average month, the food stamp program benefits help feed one in four children in the United States. What good news, then, that, Mr. Speaker, his view of what should happen is that if people are humiliated enough, that in fact they will try to figure out how to make do for themselves. That is not what this country is about. It is a slap in the face to hardworking Americans. It is time for a better deal for Americans, one that does prioritize job creation, as you have talked about, rising incomes, a 21st century economy that levels the playing field for the working class and the working poor. And I am reminded of the words of Bobby Kennedy, whose legacy fighting poverty should be a model for all of us, and just let me quote him. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman has read this quote, if I know him: ``I believe that as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil. Government belongs wherever evil needs an adversary and there are people in distress.'' This is what our role and our responsibility is, is to help to provide that opportunity. Do not let people be abandoned in this country for some ideological views or the sense that we need to make sure that the wealthiest, the millionaires, the billionaires, the corporations, need to be the winners in our society. It is not just Congress' moral obligation to help those in poverty, it is our duty. That is why we were elected to come to this institution. We should not be abandoning the people who put their faith and trust in all of us. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman for focusing on this issue and thank him for including me.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the omnibus funding bill for 2018 makes important investments in health, education, and job programs. It rejects many of the damaging ideological riders that marked earlier efforts in this appropriations process. In a time when the Trump administration is seeking massive cuts in funding, senseless eliminations of critical programs, and the fundamental hollowing out of our Federal agencies, we fought to include critical investments in Democratic priorities that boost the middle class. For health, it is an increase of $3 billion for the National Institutes of Health research, including an increase of more than 50 percent to develop a universal flu vaccine. There is an increase of more than $3 billion for opioids, including funding to support treatment and prevention, prescription drug monitoring programs, behavioral health workforce training programs, and so much more. We secured increases for our country's youngest children and their families, including an historic increase of $2.4 billion for childcare and $610 million for Head Start. In education, we include public school education formula grants that help students learn and keep them safe, including title 1, Student Support and Academic Enrichment, afterschool and special education. We do not advance the radical agenda of taking money from public schools through private school vouchers. I am thrilled that we have helped to make college more affordable by increasing the maximum Pell grant and other campus-based financial aid. We achieved an important victory for workers. The deal prohibits employers from pocketing workers' tips, including taking tips to pay managers and supervisors; and workers will have the right to sue to get back their stolen tips regardless of whether they were paid the full minimum wage or not. We held the line. We kept out the poison pill riders that would harm women's access to healthcare and riders that negatively impact the Department of Labor's ability to protect workers. This omnibus ignores shortsighted cuts that are proposed by the Trump administration and instead increases funding for priorities that touch people's lives.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring much-needed attention to a critical issue: the outsourcing of U.S. jobs and wages. I have been fighting on behalf of working people to stop outsourcing, to stop sending our jobs overseas; and fighting against low-income wages that outsourcing has caused since the day I came to the Congress. Right now, we have an opportunity to make real progress, pushing back against outsourcing. But in order to make that opportunity reality, we cannot accept the status quo on the North American Free Trade Agreement. Any renegotiated NAFTA must eliminate the incentives for outsourcing jobs, raise wages, and level the playing field for North American workers. It is our job to ensure that the Trump administration keeps its promises to the middle class, and put an end to the outsourcing of jobs by fighting for strong, enforceable labor and environmental standards. The U.S. labor proposal in NAFTA must dramatically improve to stop the outsourcing of good-paying jobs and the suppression of wages for working people. Unless we rewrite NAFTA with the workers at the center of our goals, we will repeat the same mistakes that we have made in the past. The North American Free Trade Agreement has already facilitated the outsourcing of a million American jobs to Mexico where corporations can pay workers poverty wages and dump toxins into the environment before bringing products back into the U.S. for sale. American workers and the environment lose. In fact, in 2004, in my district in Connecticut, we lost 300 good jobs at the BIC plant in Milford, Connecticut, because the company moved their razor operation to Mexico. Beyond BIC, NAFTA had a tremendously negative impact on my home State in Connecticut. In fact, we lost more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs since it was enacted and since China was allowed to join the WTO--the period between 1994 and 2016, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That amounts to nearly 40 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Connecticut, taking into account both jobs created by exports and jobs displaced by imports. As these jobs moved overseas, the percentage of all private sector jobs that are manufacturing jobs in Connecticut declined from 20 percent to 11 percent during the NAFTA-WTO period. I watched and I fought against the slow death of the Ansonia Copper and Brass Company as they suffered under these policies. In Connecticut, more than 25,000 workers are certified as having lost their job due to imports or outsourcing under the Trade Adjustment Assistance program--companies such as Carrier, Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Honeywell, Northrop Grumman, Dow Chemical, The Hershey Company, 3M, and others. So manufacturing jobs, good-paying jobs that you can support a family with, took a big hit in Connecticut because of NAFTA--workers who made electrical products, medical products, machined parts, printing products, clothing, automotive parts, aircraft parts, and the list goes on. When negotiated with the workers in mind, trade agreements can create jobs in America, and I will hold the Trump administration to that standard, just as I have done with every administration, no matter which party occupies the White House. Turning to investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, in trade agreements, ISDS makes it easier to outsource jobs from the United States by making it less risky. It makes it less risky for companies to move their manufacturing to places that have a weaker rule of law and an underdeveloped court system. The assumption is that, instead of relying upon rule of law and the courts, corporations can just sue the taxpayers of the host country. ISDS undermines the home advantage of a relatively well-developed court system and the rule of law like what we have here in the United States. Furthermore, ISDS can be wielded as a weapon to threaten and discourage efforts to raise wages, which encourages outsourcing. For example, the Egyptian Government was recently challenged by a multinational corporation because of a raise in the minimum wage. President Trump ran on a platform that called for an end to the outsourcing of good-paying jobs, yet his tax law, arguably his proudest achievement thus far, incentivizes outsourcing, encourages companies to export jobs by creating a lower rate for multinational corporations to invest abroad. This is nowhere near the corporate tax rate for domestic investments. This is a job killer. Right now, a company that makes their wares outside of the United States pays up to 13 percent in U.S. taxes. The same company making their wares in the United States pays 21 percent in taxes on their operations. I have recently introduced a bill striking the sections of the law that create this incentive to outsource. In closing, the biggest economic issue of our time is that too many people who play by the rules are in jobs that do not pay them enough to live on. They are struggling with rising costs of healthcare, with childcare, and some can't even put food on the table. We need to fight for these workers. We should not be sending their jobs and their wages overseas, and I will continue to fight outsourcing for hardworking middle class Americans. The stakes could not be higher.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in honor of my very dear friend and sister in arms, Marcy Kaptur, who becomes the longest serving woman in the United States House of Representatives on Sunday. Marcy Kaptur is a woman who has fought for working people her entire career. She has been a bulwark of support for fair trade that grows American jobs--on NAFTA in the 1990s to today, and on the Trans Pacific Partnership. Marcy was the ranking Member on the Agriculture before I became the chair, and on issues as wide ranging as food stamps, housing, and manufacturing, she has proven time and again to be one of the brightest, most substantive colleagues I have ever worked with. Her election paved the way for so many women to run for office. From the Carter Administration to one of the most senior members of the Congress, Marcy, your career has been exemplary of the call of public service. Shirley Chisholm, the first African American woman in the Congress, once said: ``You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas.'' Marcy does that--she has never spent a day on the sidelines in her life. Congratulations, and here is to many more years fighting together-- for the vulnerable, for families, and for the middle class.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to share the words of Geneva Cunningham. She is 15 years old. She is a ninth grader from the Hopkins Grammar School in New Haven, Connecticut. Geneva witnessed the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre when she was only in the fourth grade. Geneva's father gave me her poem in the wake of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting, though Geneva wrote it just a few days before the shooting occurred. This is what she wrote: Pure; A mother called her child Kissing his forehead On his way to school. For the boy It was a normal day Until the darkness came And swept the light away. We did not ask for this. We did not ask to hear gunshots In slamming doors and dropping books. We did not ask To witness the murders Of the children We played with at recess. We did not know That our teacher Had taught us our final lesson. And we believed her When she said The red spilling from her foot Was only paint. Sweet ignorance The honey in our poisoned tea The salt we mistook for sugar. But where do we draw the line? Between knowledge and ignorance When do we know to cover our eyes When the darkness Begins to swallow us whole. We united this country By stating ``We are one.'' And on that principle Our Forefathers said You may ``bear arms'' to fight against them. You may defend Against them. But who is this ``them''? If we are one Who are we fighting against? If we are one Then who are we defending? If we are taking lives to begin with Because killing is still killing. The number of lives lost Is no victory On our own soil Or on any soil. We say we are equals. So who gets the power To decide Who lives and who dies? Because by giving open access to these weapons We are giving power To trembling hands. And these hands Were the ones to take the life of the little boy The day he was learning How to read. These machines were not designed for play. They were designed to kill. If we use them on the battlefield If they can take a life Then they are not worth it. Because I promise you A life is worth more Than any machine Used for fun. Yet we bear these weapons. We claim that we enjoy The crack At the end of the rifle. Yeah, it may seem fun On the other side. But what if You are on the opposite end? Begging Pleading Crying out For your life. For the lives of your friends For the lives of your classmates For the life of your teacher. We must be sure Whose fingers we can trust On the trigger Because that choice May determine Your life The lives of your friends The lives of your family And the lives of those you love. Mr. Speaker, this is the voice of a child who has witnessed murder. How have we allowed this to become normal in America? Geneva's poem is beautiful, and she never should have had to write it. But this is the world that we live in: a world where NRA dollars drive decisions, sales for bulletproof backpacks are soaring, and 14- year-olds have seen their teachers and their friends die at school. We must ban assault weapons. They have no place in our society. And we must ban high-capacity magazines. We need to hold gun manufacturers accountable for crimes committed with their guns and end the de facto ban on gun research. These are commonsense reforms. As Marjory Stoneman Douglas student Emma Gonzalez said so pointedly: ``We are going to be the kids you read about in textbooks, not because we are going to be another statistic about mass shooting in America, but because . . . we are going to be the last mass shooting.'' I pray that she is right. But it is Congress that needs to provide more than thoughts and prayers for a change. We must take action. That is our moral responsibility.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed rollcall vote No. 100 regarding the Motion to Recommit on H.R. 1119. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed rollcall vote No. 101 regarding the ``Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act'' (H.R. 1119). Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this is National Anti-Hunger Week. The United States is the richest nation on Earth. We are a land of abundance. And yet millions of people in our country go to bed hungry every single night. They are called food insecure, but what it is is that they are hungry, and programs like the food stamp program, the SNAP program, have enjoyed bipartisan support for decades because great leaders, people like George McGovern, Bob Dole, Ted Kennedy, Jack Kennedy, and people like Jake Javits, said that we have a moral obligation to combat hunger in the United States. What we need to do is to strengthen the SNAP program, not sabotage it. This administration's new proposals to implement strict work requirements are a thinly veiled attempt to throw people off of the program. The vast majority of SNAP recipients already work if they can. USDA's most recent data shows that work rates have been increasing year after year. The food box proposal is an attack on the dignity of the families that have fallen on hard times. Undermining SNAP will not eradicate hunger. It throws many Americans into deep poverty and desperation at times when they need support the most. Food insecurity affects veterans, working families, children, workers, the unemployed, and seniors. It is about lifting people out of poverty. It is about supporting our economy. It works for households with children.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for yielding the time. Let me, first, dispel a couple of myths that have been suggested on the floor of the House. One myth has been that small businesses are negatively impacted by the menu labeling requirements. Small businesses are unilaterally exempt from menu labeling requirements. The rule only applies to ``covered establishments,'' meaning those that have 20 or more locations. This rule does not and never was intended to apply to small businesses. That is misinformation being given out by the majority. The second item which I just heard momentarily about, penalties, menu labeling will be subject to the exact same mechanisms and penalties as those for packaged food. The FDA has maintained its commitment to compliance, outreach, and education and has waived enforcement for the first year. Additionally, numerous State and local governments have menu labeling requirements, and not one chain restaurant has faced criminal liability--once again, misinformation being distributed by the majority. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this special interest-driven attack on popular and necessary menu labeling rules. When we crafted the health reforms in the Affordable Care Act, we kept several critical goals in mind. We aimed to slow the staggering growth of healthcare spending, make preventive and wellness care more central to our health system, and give Americans access to more data so that they can make their own informed healthcare decisions. Menu labeling is an essential tool to meet all three of those goals. That is why I have been a longtime champion of menu labeling, and I fought hard to secure its inclusion in the Affordable Care Act. Congress passed standardized menu labeling in 2010. The goal was to arm Americans with the information they need to make informed nutritional decisions for themselves and their families. The language was built on consensus and compromise. It was worked out between a variety of interests, including industry partners and the National Restaurant Association. Industry has already had nearly 8 years of input for the implementation of the labeling rule, yet, with this misguided bill, certain sectors of the industry will tear down the progress that we have made. This bill would roll back and weaken this crucial step to combat the obesity epidemic in the United States. This is obstruction. American families are paying the price in their healthcare costs. In 2015, sales at restaurants and bars surpassed spending at grocery stores for the first time. In a typical day, one-third of our children, 4 in 10 adolescents, and one-third of adults eat at a fast food restaurant. Americans are eating, on average, one-third of their calories outside of the home. Nutritional information must be made readily available where the consumer is at the point of purchase. A health impact assessment from Los Angeles County found that menu labeling could avert 40 percent of the 6.75 million-pound average weight gain in the country. You think of that in terms of healthcare costs and the impact that decrease would have. Our children are especially at risk. Today, more than one-third of our kids and adolescents are overweight or obese. Children eat more than twice as many calories at a restaurant than they do at home. They consume less nutrients and more saturated fats. The impact on our kids alone should be reason enough to oppose a measure that undermines a consumer's ability to make informed, nutritious choices at mealtimes. Menu labeling is popular. In a national poll, over 80 percent of Americans support menu labeling in chain restaurants. Over 100 nutrition and health organizations support menu labeling. Chains from Starbucks to Panera Bread to McDonald's are already implementing menu labeling. The rest of the industry must follow suit. Consumers have a right to make an informed decision. It is disrespectful for the industry and their partners to argue that the American people cannot understand menu labeling. Give people the ability to make their choice. You go in to eat, it has been a great day, you look at the board, you see something that you want, you look at the calories and say: Today, I think I will watch my calories. You order accordingly. Other days, it is a bad day. You go in and you throw caution to the wind. You say: I am going to order whatever I can, no matter what the calorie count is. This is about the right to choose and freedom of choice. That is what we are talking about here today. This bill denies consumers the right to nutritional information at that point of purchase. Even if 49 percent of orders are placed from in-store menus, food establishments could bury menu labeling online. Multiple studies have shown that providing calorie menu labeling information can help Americans make lower calorie choices, but they cannot do this if they do not have the information they need. This bill increases consumer confusion and allows restaurants to list deceptive portion sizes, listing an entree as multiple servings even though these items are most often consumed by one person. It weakens enforcement and consumer protection, completely removes an establishment's incentive to comply with the menu labeling requirements, and removes the ability of individuals to hold retail food establishments accountable for violations to the food labeling law. The existing law is already extremely flexible. I said restaurants with less than 20 locations. Mom-and-pop small businesses are excluded. I don't believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand that. Read the legislation. Let me mention something which has been very interesting, and that is about pizza companies. I come from New Haven, Connecticut, an Italian- American neighborhood. I know something about pizza. What we have done with the industry is to work with them. The FDA opened the door to allow them what they asked for: to give a range of calories on a slice of pizza. They have done it. These are FDA charts which demonstrate how easily you can put a label on the food so that people understand what the calories are. I will show this one. Calories are listed per slice. That is what the industry wanted. That is what we did. They have the ranges that they have for their various toppings. Don't let the other side sell you a bill of goods. The FDA has conceded that they can list the calories in a single slice rather than an entire pizza. This all illustrates that the Food and Drug Administration has already been working closely with the industry to address their concerns. We should let them work through this process, rather than complicating it with legislation that, in fact, would harm what we have been doing, what we have worked on all these years: meaningful, impactful work on menu labeling with a single stroke. This is a special interest-driven bill. It is not the answer. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a document that outlines the myths that are perpetrated by the majority and what the underlying facts are. Busting the Myths of Menu Labeling The Menu Labeling Rule provides consumers with nutritional information on the foods they purchase. This crucial information would give Americans a tool to make healthy choices. Nevertheless, the lobbying of special interest groups has resulted in H.R. 772, a bill based on nothing more than misleading myths. MYTH No. 1: Small businesses are negatively impacted. Small businesses are unilaterally exempt from menu labeling requirements. The rule only applies to ``covered establishments,'' meaning those that have 20 or more locations. The rule does not, and never was intended, to apply to small businesses. MYTH No. 2: Labeling requirements are burdensome and difficult to comply with. In reality, nutritional labeling requirements are straightforward and easy to implement, which is why numerous food retailers are already labeling calories on their menus. Furthermore, FDA has sought eight years of industry input which has resulted in the most flexible disclosure requirements to date. Nutritional information for complex menu items can be disclosed in ranges, without the need to estimate exact calories for various combinations. MYTH No. 3: Labeling requirements only create consumer confusion. The Menu Labeling Rule actually reduces consumer confusion by providing nutritional information at the point of purchase, and ensures that portion sizes are listed realistically. The rule will allow for a standard nutritional information format which will facilitate consumer understanding. Without it, consumers will be subject to deceptive portion sizes which can lead to them making misinformed decisions based on misleading information. MYTH No. 4: Enforcements and penalties for noncompliance are harsh and unreasonable. Menu labeling will be subject to the exact same mechanisms and penalties as those for packaged food. FDA has maintained its commitment to compliance outreach and education, and has waived enforcement for the first year. Additionally, numerous state and local governments have menu labeling requirements, and not one chain restaurant has faced a lawsuit. MYTH No. 5: Menu Labeling Requirements are unpopular among American consumers. Consumers have unequivocally maintained their support for menu labeling, with a recent poll showing support as high as 80 percent among Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Moreover, more than 100 public health organizations and health professionals have voiced their opposition to H.R. 772 because it would ``undermine congressional intent to provide access to calorie labeling in a broad range of chain food service establishments.'' Congressional Republicans have yet again bowed to special interest and created a carve-out for big food corporations who do not have the best interests of Americans at heart. Overwhelmingly, consumers want to know the nutritional information of the foods they are eating. Please oppose H.R. 772--as well as any efforts that seek to undermine consumers.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this continuing resolution. I cannot support a bill that flies in the face of responsible governing. This is pure incompetence. How many times are we going to do this? This is our fifth short-term spending bill since September. How many times will we punt our priorities, lurching from one self-inflicted wound to another? That is exactly what the continuing resolution represents: a failure to govern. It is shameful that, yet again, we neglect our core obligation as a Congress, which is to fund government programs. We should be voting on new top-line spending levels for 2018, that alleviate sequestration from both nondefense and defense spending. We should have spent the last few months fulfilling our responsibility as legislators by writing bipartisan bills to fund programs that help the middle class and the vulnerable, support evidence-based scientific research, and help working people get the skills they need to find good jobs and get good wages. Instead, the majority forced through their tax scam for millionaires and billionaires. They became the first party to ever control both Chambers of Congress and the White House, and, yes, they shut down the government. And today, the President of the United States says that he supports a government shutdown. The Republican majority has failed to respond to the needs of the American people. Instead of working with Democrats to set budget numbers and ensure parity, equal for defense spending and nondefense spending, they have put the government on autopilot. They put services and investments that are critical to our families and to our communities at grave risk from apprenticeships to education for students with disabilities, childcare, after-school programs that help working families make ends meet, and financial aid for students who are attending college. Instead, they are forcing through another continuing resolution, this time cutting almost $3 billion from the Prevention Fund over the next 10 years on top of the $750 million that they cut in December.

Ms. DeLAURO. We are talking about cuts to programs that improve our public health immunization infrastructure at a time when the flu is rampant in this country, as well as cuts to lead poisoning prevention programs that seek to prevent and ultimately eliminate childhood lead poisoning. Programs like these and dozens of others in the Prevention Fund save billions of taxpayer dollars by preventing illness and disease before they occur. You cut the Prevention Fund and you cause millions of Americans to suffer for no reason. You pit community health centers against the Prevention Fund. Take the money, the $1\1/2\ trillion that you give to the richest people in this country: the millionaires, the billionaires, and the richest corporations; don't take it from children's health, don't take it from the healthcare centers, and don't take it from the Prevention Fund. It is unacceptable, because here we are talking about people's lives. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues: Reject this continuing resolution. It fails to meet our obligations to the American people.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to rise today to join the many family, friends, and colleagues who have gathered today to celebrate an outstanding member of Connecticut's labor movement and my good friend, John Harrity. John, who has been a proud member of IAM since the day after he was hired as a vertical turret lathe operator at Pratt & Whitney nearly forty years ago, marks his retirement having served as President of the Connecticut State Council of Machinists since 2012. John began his union service with IAM Local 1746 where he served as a Shop Steward and Senior Steward as well as editor of the Local Lodge 1746 newsletter. In 1986, he was elected Business Representative, beginning his service with the Connecticut State Council of Machinists, and four years later he was asked to take the position of Editor/Organizer for IAM District 91 and then an organizer for IAM District 26, a position which he has continued to hold until now. From contract negotiations to communications to organization efforts, John's work has helped to secure economic and retirement security for his members and their families. As President of the Connecticut State Council of Machinists, John has been the voice for more than 10,000 active and retired IAM members and they could not have asked for a more passionate or dedicated leader. John's work for IAM members has extended far beyond his role within the union itself. He has served as director of GrowJobsCT, a program that brings together labor and state business interests on issues of common concern in order to support manufacturing and its associated jobs throughout Connecticut. He has also served on a number of boards and commissions related to jobs, including as a member of the Board of Directors of the Connecticut Green Bank and Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Connecticut Roundtable on Jobs and Climate. He was a founding member of the Connecticut Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Coalition, a member of the Advisory Board of Connecticut's Manufacturing Innovation Fund, and co-chair of the Workforce Development Committee of the Manufacturing Innovation Fund in its Investing in Manufacturing Community Partnerships federal initiative. John also played a critical role in the development of the Advanced Manufacturing Training Center at Goodwin College where he is an adjunct faculty member. Over the years, John and I have worked on countless issues together and I will always be grateful for his candor, friendship, and support. He has dedicated a lifetime to ensuring safe workplaces. Today, as he marks his retirement, I am honored to stand and extend my deepest thanks and appreciation to John Harrity for his bold leadership and outstanding contributions to IAM and Connecticut's labor movement. I wish him, his wife, Cindy, his children and grandchildren the very best for many more years of health and happiness as they begin this new chapter.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to rise today to pay tribute to Julie Kushner, Director of UAW Region 9A, as she marks her retirement after seven years as Director and more than thirty years as a union activist and leader. Julie began her career in the union movement in 1977 when she joined District 65, an independent union that later affiliated with the UAW, where she participated in many successful organizing drives, including for clerical and administrative support staff at Columbia University, various trade schools, as well as public and non-profit organizations. Her vision and success led to her election as the first president of UAW Local 2110, an amalgamated local with units in a variety of nonmanufacturing settings. As president, Julie was responsible for collective bargaining for more than thirty-five Technical, Office and Professional Units, particularly committed to the fight for contract language to protect workers' health and safety, and to promote women's and family issues. Julie's career with Region 9A began with her appointment to the staff in 1994 where she focused on education. Responsible for the organization of thousands of graduate student employees, adjunct faculty, and part-time faculty, as well as the successful election, campaign, and negotiations for the first contract for the dealers at Foxwoods Resort Casino, Julie rose through the ranks at Region 9A to become its Director. Her leadership has been defined by an aggressive organizing program and an expansion of its coalition building program. Julie's contributions to UAW Region 9A and the labor movement as a whole have been nothing short of extraordinary. Her efforts have ensured that thousands of workers have a safe work environment and economic security for their families. I would be remiss if I did not extend a personal note of thanks and appreciation to Julie for her many years of friendship. I have had the pleasure of working with her throughout my time as a Member of Congress and have always appreciated her candor, her vision, and her dedication to her members. Julie Kushner has dedicated her professional career to ensuring the economic security as well as the health and safety of our working families. I am honored to rise today to extend my heartfelt congratulations and sincere thanks to Julie as she marks the end of a remarkable career. I wish her, her husband, Larry, as well as their three children and four grandchildren the very best for many more years of health and happiness as they begin this new chapter.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this government shutdown is the President and the Republicans' inability to govern, except to give huge tax cuts to the 1 percent and their corporate donors. The Constitution empowers Congress to appropriate the funds for the general well-being and for national defense. Instead, the Republicans are asking us to fund the government 30 days at a time. We will not be lectured on the health and the safety of our children by a party who has refused to fund community health centers, a party who dragged their feet for months while the families of children on CHIP were terrified about the future of the program. If they are so concerned about children's health, they would make the Children's Health Insurance Program permanent. But this is not about CHIP. Do not insult the intelligence of the American people. Just look what happened in the Senate. They refused to take up a permanent CHIP bill. Republicans are using CHIP as a bargaining chip and nothing more. Do not hide behind our children. Reopen this government before people get hurt. We will not cave in to bullying and brinksmanship. We are here to govern, not to play a game of chicken. We need to meet the needs of the middle class and working families, and we need to fund our government programs.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oregon does not know what the Health and Prevention Fund is all about. It is more than children's health. It is vaccines; it is insulin; it is lead paint protection programs. Know what it is. This is the majority who has spent the better part of the year decimating an Affordable Care Act and not caring a wit about what was happening to children and their healthcare. We do not fund community health centers, and children who are eligible for CHIP will not be able to get the help they need because they can't go a community healthcare center. And if you are really concerned about the children of this Nation and their healthcare, bring a clean CHIP bill to this floor and let's make it permanent. Don't hide. Don't hide behind the children of this country.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. With this bill, the Majority has declared war on the health and wellbeing of millions of women, rolling back women's health care. The bill's inflammatory language is an insult to women and the doctors who provide them with care. This legislation is redundant, and would criminalize the work that doctors do legally today. This would unnecessarily intimidate healthcare providers like Planned Parenthood, who serve 2.4 million Americans every year with lifesaving services like pap tests, breast exams, and screenings for sexually transmitted infections. For many low-income families, Planned Parenthood is their only option. Family planning is a critical component of women's economic security. Being able to determine when and how to have children has a direct effect on a working woman's ability to chart their course in terms of schooling, careers, and family. These decisions should be left to women, their loved ones, and doctors. This bill is spiteful, mean-spirited, and dangerous. It limits women's healthcare choices and interferes with the patient doctor relationship--in fact, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists call this legislation, and I quote ``a gross interference in the practice of medicine.'' The Congress should not stop women from accessing care, and we certainly should not be hindering a woman's ability to make her own healthcare decisions. We ought to be protecting the rights of every woman to make her own family planning decisions, and to have access to a full range of healthcare services. I urge my colleagues to reject this partisan, cruel bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this continuing resolution. It is staggering that yet again we are punting one of our core obligations as a Congress: funding government programs. We should be negotiating spending levels for 2018 for both defense spending and nondefense spending. We should have spent the last few months fulfilling our responsibility as legislators by writing bipartisan bills to fund programs that help working families and the middle class and the vulnerable, to support evidence-based scientific research, and to help working people get the skills they need to find good jobs with good wages. Instead, Republicans have continued their irresponsible trend of continuing resolution after continuing resolution. They fail to govern. They create chaos. This bill fails to support community health centers, which serve as the primary healthcare provider for over 27 million people, including disproportionately rural and low-income populations. In 2016, over 376,000 patients across Connecticut received care at the Connecticut Community Health Center. They cut taxes for insurance companies while failing to fund community health centers. It is shameful. They won't work with Democrats to set budget numbers and ensure parity for defense and nondefense spending. They put services and investments critical to families and our communities at risk; from apprenticeships to education for students with disabilities, to childcare, to afterschool programs that help working families make ends meet, and to financial aid for students attending college. They include an extension for the Children's Health Insurance Program, but they cut out the Medicare extenders and other healthcare programs. But they should be ashamed of the months of fear and turmoil they have caused to children and their families who will be unable to get help at community healthcare centers. They had the time to cram a tax scam through the Congress before the end of the year.

Ms. DeLAURO. Yet, for the vulnerable children, we have dragged our feet for months. Shameful. Let me just say, the President Trump and the Republican majority who try to cast the blame for this shutdown on the Democrats--let me just remind this body and the American people that 9 months ago the President said: Our country needs a good shutdown in September to fix this mess. Well, the President may get what he wants and what he desires as a government shutdown, but it is not because of the Democrats. It is because of the intractability of the Republican majority in this House and this administration to move forward on behalf of the American people. It is not the Democrats. President Trump has called for a shutdown of this government.