Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it was only yesterday that our Republican colleagues voted to spend $1.5 trillion of taxpayers' money on tax cuts for millionaires. Eighty-three percent of the tax cuts go to 1 percent of the people in this Nation. Instead, they are cutting nearly $1 billion from public health programs that protect them and their family. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this continuing resolution because it fails to meet the obligations that we are entrusted with, the moral responsibility that we have to the American people.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this continuing resolution. Yet again we are punting one of our core obligations as Members of Congress: funding government programs. The Republican majority has failed to respond to the needs of the American people. They put services and investments that are critical to our families and our communities at risk: from apprenticeships to education for students with disabilities, child care, afterschool programs that help working families make ends meet, and financial aid for students attending college. We should be negotiating spending levels for 2018 for both defense and nondefense spending. We should have spent the last 2 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 that they need to find good jobs with good wages. Instead, the Republican majority squandered the last 2 months focused on their tax scam, rewarding big corporations, millionaires, and billionaires who wrote the rules to make government work for them. Our Republican colleagues were their comrades in arms in rigging the game against the middle class. I am horrified by the majority's decision to put the future of the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, in jeopardy: kids' checkups, shots, prescriptions, dental and vision care, hospital care, and the list goes on. States are beginning to cut children off because of the majority's delay--my own State of Connecticut. The hardworking families that depend on CHIP deserve to know that it will be there for their children for the long term. How can the majority go on vacation while millions of children worry about losing their health insurance? This is a disgrace. This bill also cuts $750 million from the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which supports programs such as heart disease and stroke prevention, diabetes prevention, immunization and vaccination programs.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the biggest economic challenge of our time is that too many people are in jobs that do not pay them enough to live on. Wages are not keeping up with rising costs. Too many families struggle today to make ends meet. Some have two or three jobs. They can't afford healthcare. They can't afford--some can't afford to put food on the table. They don't take vacations, and their retirement is in jeopardy. But it is the big corporations, the millionaires and the billionaires, who are writing the rules to make government work for them, and it is the Republicans who are their comrades in arms who are rigging the game against the middle class. Senator Orrin Hatch, who wrote this bill, said: ``I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won't help themselves, won't lift a finger, and expect the Federal Government to do everything.'' This is the ugly truth of this Republican tax bill. And I say to Senator Hatch: ``The Federal Government has taken good care of you. It is about the great people of this Nation that we are not taking care of.'' That is what this vote is about. This is where their values are. They are on display. The final bill is even worse than we feared. It lowers the tax rate for the wealthiest people even more. It repeals a key element of the Affordable Care Act, kicking 13 million people off their insurance, raising premiums by 10 percent. Don't let them fool you on the child tax credit. It is a shameful proposal. It shuts out military families, rural families, large families, minimum wage workers, those with the youngest children. If you make $400,000 a year, you get a $4,000 child tax credit. If you make $14,500 a year, you get $75. Who are they fooling with this bill? And you know what, my colleague, just a minute ago, said: Yes, those in this Chamber will benefit. You bet. We are eligible for the child tax credit, but low-income families are not. This bill fails the middle class. It benefits the richest 1 percent. Vote against it as I will.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues who are here this evening. I also want to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Esty, for her indomitable efforts and work in making sure that we focus our time and our attention to the prevention of gun violence. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor and to commemorate the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, 5 years ago. We lost 20 beautiful innocent children and 6 wonderful caring adults. While the grief and pain of the families who lost a loved one at Sandy Hook endures, we can all find hope and strength in the resilience of Newtown, and, together, we must honor their loss with action. Tonight, I want to share an essay from ``Bullets into Bells: Poets and Citizens Respond to Gun Violence.'' Abbey Clements, a teacher at Sandy Hook, wrote the following: ``154 shots. They heard them all. I thought they were folding chairs falling. We huddled into the coats and backpacks. Some of them cried. Some of them laughed--how could they know? And if they knew, how could they believe? We shared a water bottle, a blue one, passing it around. Little arms poking out to take it. We waited. We had to believe the police were who they said they were. I opened the door. They scattered. A few in my outstretched arms. We ran. We were lucky. Surviving is a gift and a burden. What do you do with that? ``For me, as soon as I could, I started to fight. I fight to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. I fight to keep guns locked up and away from curious toddlers and depressed teens. I fight against arming teachers, and I fight to keep guns out of college dorms and classrooms. Lockdowns, active-shooter drills, and backpacks that morph into shields aren't the answer. ``Parents shouldn't have to worry about whether or not their kids will make it home from school. A year or two after the tragedy, one mom told me that, every day after school, she left a gift for her daughter sitting on her bed--a celebration for making it home.'' Those are the words of Abbey Clements, a teacher at Sandy Hook. It is our job to make sure that those children get home safe from school. We have the ability to do that in this institution. What we need is the will to do it. Again, I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Esty, for her leadership in this effort.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to join the many family, friends, and colleagues who have gathered to extend their congratulations to an outstanding member of our community, and my dear friend, Anthony P. Rescigno, as he marks his retirement as President of the Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce. For nearly two decades, Tony has led the Chamber with a unique combination of dedication and innovation, ensuring it has been a strong voice on behalf of and invaluable resource for its members. Tony's professional career has spanned both the private and public sectors. After graduating from the University of New Haven, he began a remarkable career at Plasticrete in Hamden, Connecticut which would eventually culminate in he and twelve other employees purchasing the company and later creating a subsidiary, Plasticrete Distributors where he served as President. Tony entered public life in 1989 when he was elected First Selectman of North Haven, a position which he held for more than a decade. It was when he left public office that he took the reins at the Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce. Since its inception, the Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce has strived to help businesses of all sizes and focus throughout the region to build on their success. Under Tony's direction, the Chamber sought to expand that mission through advocacy, education and networking. The Leadership Center, home to both Leadership Greater New Haven and Executive Orientation, offers aspiring community leaders and business executives a series of practical, hands-on training programs in professional development and education in social and economic issues. Understanding that attracting and retaining young, energetic professionals is vital to the growth and success of New Haven, PULSE is a group for local young professionals, ages 21-40, with a mission of connecting its members with each other and with the community through social and professional networking events, educational seminars and community service projects. The Chamber has also renewed its focus on advocating for its members with local, state, and national officials, as well as providing strategic business development planning and other resources. For the last seventeen years, Tony's leadership has strengthened the Chamber's involvement in economic development across the region, encouraged the development of young professionals and entrepreneurs, and created invaluable partnership and networking opportunities for its members. While his daily presence will most certainly be missed, his vision and good work has left a legacy on which the Chamber can continue to build for many years to come. I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to extend a personal note of thanks to Tony for his many years of friendship. Whether as President of the Chamber, First Selectman of North Haven, or business leader, Tony has always been a willing partner in helping to move our communities forward. For his lifetime of invaluable contributions to Greater New Haven, I am honored to have this opportunity to extend my sincere thanks and heartfelt congratulations to Tony as he celebrates his retirement. I wish him and his wife, Lynne, all the best for many more years of health and happiness as they enjoy this next chapter of their lives.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on this continuing resolution and on the past year of this Congress. The biggest economic challenge of our time is that people are in jobs that do not pay them enough to live on. Wages are not keeping up with rising costs for healthcare, childcare, and housing. Too many families struggle to make ends meet, let alone put money in a college fund or go on vacation. That is what we should be focused on. We ought to be creating jobs and raising wages. Yet, for the first 9 months of this year, this Congress attempted again and again to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would have raised premiums and deductibles, thrown millions off insurance, and made healthcare unaffordable. Then we spent our entire fall on the Republican tax scam. Big corporations, millionaires, billionaires write the rules to make this government work for them, and Republicans are their comrades-in-arms in rigging the game against the middle class. Just a few days ago, Senator Orrin Hatch said: ``I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won't help themselves, won't lift a finger, and expect the Federal Government to do everything.'' Get out of the Senate Chamber. Understand what people's lives are about today. Walk in their shoes and understand their struggles. But this is the ugly truth of the Republican tax bill. This is what the vote was about. These are their values on display. This tax scam is going to raise the deficit, and the Republicans will use it as an excuse to cut vital social safety net programs: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, LIHEAP, TANF, education programs, SNAP, food stamps. Right now, funding is insufficient to provide childcare assistance to all who are eligible; yet, if we pass this tax bill, we will be under intense pressure to cut this assistance. That is what they want to do. This is wrong. Now we are punting one of our core obligations as a Congress: funding our government programs. This is unacceptable. It is a disturbing pattern and it is unsustainable. We should be negotiating spending levels for 2018. The majority can never again speak about regular order. This year has been one partisan attempt after another to harm working class and middle class Americans so that they could fulfill their campaign promises. We have no budget agreement. We have no resolve on the Children's Health Insurance Program. We have no resolve on a myriad of programs that people rely on to live their lives every day. There is no resolve on the DREAMers. Why would we need another 2 weeks when they have had all this time to work on these issues? The American people deserve better. I say: Shame on this Congress, and vote ``no'' on this continuing resolution extension.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to the Republican tax scam. The biggest economic challenge 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. Wages are not keeping up with rising costs. Too many families today struggle to make ends meet. They have the rising cost of healthcare, of child care, and of housing. Meanwhile, big corporations, millionaires, and billionaires write the rules to make government work for them--and Republicans are their comrades in arms in rigging the game against the middle class. Enough is enough. It cuts taxes for the wealthiest Americans, raises taxes on the middle class, and it increases the deficit. And worse, it encourages companies who outsource American jobs. Congress must put middle class families and jobs before corporations that have not been loyal to their employees and to our country. When you outsource jobs, you drive wages down here at home. Let me mention the child tax credit to you. The Republican proposal leaves behind vulnerable families--military families, rural families, large families, minimum wage workers, and those with the youngest children. Do not let them get away with this scam. This is not reform. It is tax cuts for the wealthiest, and I oppose it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Why would we further undermine a worker's ability to bring pay discrimination cases against their employer? We must stand with workers, defend the current definition of joint employers. To those who claim that joint employer status is burdensome or confusing for companies, let me just ask you: What about the burden on millions of Americans who are experiencing pay disparity and pay discrimination? I urge my colleagues, reject this bill. Take a stand for equal pay, for equal work. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from our labor leaders rejecting H.R. 3441. July 28, 2017. Dear Representative: We, the undersigned unions representing millions of American workers, are writing to urge you to not support H.R. 3441, the joint employer bill introduced by Representatives Bradley Byrne and Chairwoman Virginia Foxx of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, which would eliminate the National Labor Relation Board's (NLRB) decision in Browning-Ferris, and greatly restrict the definition of employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Congress should be working to strengthen the rights of working people and raise wages. The legislation would accomplish the opposite. Over the past few decades, the middle class has been struggling to stay afloat. As wages have often been stagnant or declining, more and more companies have used middlemen from staffing agencies, labor contractors and to subcontractors to maintain low wages, avoid accountability and prevent a large percentage of workers from organizing. It is important that when workers try to remedy illegal employment practices or organize to join a union that the party calling the shots is at the table and part of the remedy. And indeed, the current state of the law under both under the National Labor Relations Act and the FSLA balances the interests of workers and employers by requiring a fact specific inquiry to determine whether or not there is a joint employer relationship. This bill seeks to legislate around a century of consistent case law and established joint employer standards in labor and employment law. It redefines the term 'employer' so narrowly that many workers will have no remedy when their employers violate their union rights or wage laws. The legislation would overturn the Browning Ferris NLRB decision, a case which found a joint employer relationship between Browning Ferris and Leadpoint their subcontractor. In this case, Browning-Ferris, Inc. (BFI), the employer, controlled the speed of the conveyor belt where employees of contractor Leadpoint sorted materials, prohibited Leadpoint from raising wages above a specified cap without BFI's permission, and determined the shift times and the number of people on shifts. Since Leadpoint was unable to negotiate these employment terms among others without BFI approval, the NLRB found BFI must be at the bargaining table along with its subcontractor in order for the union to negotiate a meaningful collective bargaining agreement. The decision was fact specific and in keeping with the realities of today's workplace. Further, the bill would drastically change the definition of employment relationships under the FLSA which recognizes that more than one business can be an employer. Currently, under the FLSA employers cannot hide behind labor contractors or franchisees, when they set critical conditions of employment. Because the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act refers to the definition of ``employ'' in the FLSA, this bill will also impact farm workers seeking to redress wage theft and other employment abuses. It is the FLSA definition of employ that has allowed workers to effectively enforce child labor and other laws and to effectively address sweatshops for decades. Today, it is this definition that offers workers hope that when they organize for a union and better wages that the party that can actually effectuate change is at the table. We urge you to weigh the interests of workers and stand with them in opposing legislation that would rollback the NLRB's decision and restrict workers' rights under the law. Sincerely, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT). Service Employees International Union (SEIU). United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). United Farm Workers of America (UFW). United Food & Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW). United Steelworkers (USW).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, which would overturn the National Labor Relations Board's joint employer decision. It will make it harder for working people to hold employers accountable for abuses, including making it harder to bring Equal Pay Act claims. In 2015, the National Labor Relations Board ruled in their Browning- Ferris decision that a company can be held liable for labor violations by other employers they contract with. This definition of joint employers reflects the reality that subcontractors in the workforce face today. In fact, according to the Economic Policy Institute: ``The most rigorous recent estimates find that the share of workers being subcontracted out was 15.8 percent in late 2015. In today's labor market, that translates into roughly 24 million workers.'' The bill we are debating today would fly in the face of the 2015 decision, undermining employee protections. This bill would create a more narrow and restrictive definition of a joint employer; it would limit workers' ability to hold employers responsible for violations under the National Labor Relations Act, such as attempts to stop collective bargaining; or the Fair Labor Standards Act, such as wage theft, equal pay violations. Let me talk about what this would mean in just one area: pay discrimination. Pay discrimination in the workplace is real; it is happening everywhere. Pay inequity does not just affect women; it affects children, families, and our economy as a whole. That is because women in this country are the sole or co-breadwinners in half of the families with children. The biggest problem facing our Nation today is that families are not making enough to live on. They are not being paid enough in the jobs that they have. Closing the wage gap would help to address that problem.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill. First, by the way, my colleague from California (Ms. Matsui) talked about the Democratic substitute. But let's be clear, it is our Republican colleagues, the majority, who would not make a Democratic substitute in order that would allow us to come here to have a debate on their proposal and what we proposed. How about that for democracy in the United States House of Representatives? No Democratic substitute. So let's leave that aside and focus on what we have here today. Again, opposed to the rule, opposed to the bill. The Children's Health Insurance Program is vital for millions of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens--our children. The gentleman before spoke about 9 million children. Yes. But do you know how long we have waited for the majority to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program? The length of time is shameful. But even more shameful is how the majority intends to pay for the Children's Health Insurance Program. This is what the bill does. The bill includes massive cuts to something called the Prevention and Public Health Fund. What is the Prevention and Public Health Fund? It is inclusive of many of the programs that we rely on in order to save lives. Yes. They are the programs that go to help our community health centers be able to treat people who come to their door. Twenty-three million people in the United States use community health centers. It is often their primary care. But let me lay out for you what some of these programs are: the Centers for Disease Control childhood vaccines--vaccinations and immunizations for our kids being cut--lead poisoning prevention. You go to any community in this country, and they will tell you whether it is water or whether it is paint. Some of our children have the highest levels of lead, and what we need to be doing is screening them at a very early age so that we can address the issue. They cut this out, also the Centers for Disease Control heart disease program, stroke and diabetes programs, breastfeeding grants for hospitals, childhood obesity prevention, and suicide prevention. We are looking today at an opioid crisis in this Nation that so often results in suicides, and they are willing to cut the heart out of the Prevention Fund programs to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program. So we are harming children at one end of the spectrum and robbing the money from that end of the spectrum to pay for the Children's Health Insurance Program, which I am a big supporter of. So we are stealing from this prevention program. Now today, my Republican colleagues have offered a tax cut proposal. Take a hard look at it because the richest, the wealthiest, and those with the most lobbyists are the biggest beneficiaries of these tax cuts, and middle class working families will get the short end of the stick. Those people who make over $1 million--several million dollars-- are going to get the benefit of the tax cut. Why aren't we taking that money and paying to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program rather than taking the money from the Prevention and Public Health Fund? So instead of providing tax cuts today for the richest 1 percent of Americans, we could have a strong Children's Health Insurance Program, and we could have a strong Prevention and Public Health Fund that does not have to make these egregious cuts. I think there is one more point that people need to know about this bill. The bill cuts something that was in the Affordable Care Act--the grace period. They cut that back to 30 days. That means if someone misses one health insurance payment, they can lose their insurance for the remainder of the year. Today, our biggest economic challenge as a nation is that people are in jobs that just don't pay them enough to live on. They can't afford their healthcare. It is cruel, and it is a brazen attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act, which, quite frankly, has been the majority's agenda for a very long time.

Ms. DeLAURO. There is no need to play off children's health insurance against the Prevention and Public Health Fund. There is no need to cut back on the grace period for the folks who may miss one health insurance payment. So I urge my colleagues: don't be cruel; don't be inhumane. To those of my colleagues who will say no to this, you stand on solid ground. You stand with families in this Nation. You stand with children when you say no to cuts that are going to hurt their lives.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to join the many family, friends, and colleagues who have gathered to pay tribute to William F. Henderson III as he retires after forty-three years of dedicated service in the communications industry and, most recently, as the President of the Communications Workers of America Local 1298. A frame man and then centralized power technician, over the course of his career, Bill worked for Southern New England Telephone, SBC Company and AT&T before moving to a full-time position at the CWA Local 1298. Bill was active in labor issues from the beginning of his career and served as a steward for thirty years before his election as President. During his tenure, he has guided his members through the transition of company mergers and buyouts and he has fought to protect fair wages and access to quality health benefits, ensure safe workplaces, and preserve retirement security. He has long been a fierce advocate and tireless voice on behalf of his brothers and sisters in the CWA. In addition to his professional career, Bill has volunteered countless hours to his community. In Waterford, he served for thirteen years as a member of the Representative Town Meeting where he was Chair of the Finance Committee, six years on the Board of Selectmen, eight years as Chairman of the Waterford Industrial Development Committee and served on the Library Board of Trustees and the shellfish commission. In East Lyme, he served two terms on the Board of Education as well as the Zoning Board of Appeals. His is an example of public service to which we should all strive. I would be remiss if I did not thank Bill for his counsel and collaboration over the years. He has always been just a phone call away and I cherish the strong bond of friendship we have built. Today, as he marks his retirement, I hope he knows that the CWA Local 1298 will simply not be the same without him. I am proud to stand today to extend my deepest thanks and sincere appreciation to William F. Henderson III for his many good works not professional and personal. I wish him, his wife, Brenda, as well as their children and grandchildren all the best for many more years of health and happiness as they begin this new chapter.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget resolution. A budget is a moral document. It reflects our values. This budget is a stark reminder that the majority and the Trump administration are waging a war on the middle class and eviscerating the social safety net programs that help our most vulnerable citizens. The social safety net was built on a bipartisan basis. Why is the majority hell-bent on destroying it? Older Americans will suffer under this budget. It cuts $1.5 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid. It betrays middle class job seekers by cutting job training, education programs, and other nondefense programs by 34 percent over the next 10 years. It decimates the Food Stamp program, SNAP benefits and assumes the enactment of the House-passed repeal of the Affordable Care Act, targeting American families who are struggling to get by. If we were serious about addressing the problems that face middle class families, we would be voting on a budget resolution that invests in their priorities: job training, apprenticeships, paid family and medical leave, fair trade, and equal pay for equal work. Instead, we are considering a budget that is merely a means for the majority to jam through their tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations. The biggest economic challenge of our time is that too many people now are in jobs that do not pay them enough to live on. We should be growing the middle class and looking for solutions that work for America's families. We ought to be prioritizing the needs of working families, the ones who have entrusted us to come to Washington to fight for them and to fight for their families. Instead, this budget puts corporate profits first. It caters to those with the most lobbyists. This budget is a disgrace to the promises that we have made to the American people, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, today, I rise for Dr. Liz. This is her story. Laura and Mark, a couple in Connecticut, sought prenatal care from Dr. Liz. When Laura was 20 weeks pregnant, they came in for an ultrasound. The couple was devastated when the scan showed that their baby was affected by anencephaly, meaning absence of brain development. Dr. Liz remembers watching the joy and laughter leave Laura and Mark as they absorbed this news. They sought refuge with their families and clergy, and jointly made the difficult decision to end the pregnancy rather than endure 20 more weeks, a delivery, and the certain death of the child soon thereafter. Every family should be able to make their own decisions about reproductive health. Instead, this bill puts the federal government squarely between a woman and her doctor. It even threatens providers like Dr. Liz with five years in jail if they perform a legal, constitutional, and sometimes medically necessary procedure. H.R. 36 is nothing more than a cruel attempt to deny women their constitutional rights. The Ninth Circuit struck down Idaho's 20-week ban in 2015, and also struck down a similar law from Arizona in 2013. We must stop the attacks on women's health. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 36.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise today and join the many family, friends, and colleagues who have gathered to celebrate with Lucy Nolan as she celebrates her retirement as Executive Director of End Hunger Connecticut. Throughout her remarkable career, Lucy has ensured that the issue of hunger and its root causes in our communities has remained at the forefront of public policy discourse, not only in Connecticut but nationally as well. End Hunger Connecticut is a non-profit organization dedicated to ending hunger across the state and seeks to raise awareness about hunger in Connecticut, promote funding for and access to nutrition assistance programs, and advocate for policies that address the root causes of hunger. Their goal, to help low-income families move beyond the food pantry towards self-sufficiency. Through Lucy's expertise and vision, End Hunger Connecticut has successfully advocated for a number of critical legislative initiatives including increased funding for the school breakfast program that established a pilot program for in- classroom breakfast, increasing food stamp accessibility, and led the effort to pass the country's toughest school nutrition legislation which banned the sale of sugary drinks on school grounds. Lucy's tenure also saw End Hunger Connecticut implement a very successful outreach program for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and create innovative partnerships with community leaders and community-based organizations that have strengthened community efforts to address hunger at its core. Lucy's expert knowledge and commitment has been recognized on the state and national levels. She is a legislatively appointed member to the Connecticut Milk Regulation Board, Connecticut Food Policy Council, the Farmland Preservation Board, and served on the Speaker's Task Force on Children and the Recession, as co-chair of the SustiNet Adult and Child Obesity Task Force and the Task Force on Child Obesity. She has testified before the U.S. Senate Agriculture, Forestry, and Natural Resources Committee on school nutrition programs and currently sits on the steering committee of the Connecticut Coalition Against Childhood Obesity. Under her tenure End Hunger Connecticut has been awarded the Congressional Hunger Center's ``Victory Against Hunger'' award three times and Lucy was most recently awarded the Raymond Wheeler/Paul Wellstone Award from the Food Research and Advocacy Center. On a more personal note, I cannot thank Lucy enough for many years of friendship and support. Since our first meeting, we have been sisters- in-arms--kindred spirits--in the battle against hunger. From protecting SNAP benefits to growing the summer meals program to bringing the Witness to Hunger event to New Haven, she has been the staunchest of advocates and always just a phone call away. I will be forever grateful to her for all the help and guidance she has given to me and my staff over the years. I am honored beyond measure to be fortunate enough to call her my friend. Lucy's passion, expertise, and unwavering advocacy has made all the difference at End Hunger Connecticut but most importantly in the lives of the individuals, children and families she has served every day throughout her career. I am proud to stand today to extend my heartfelt thanks and sincere appreciation to Lucy Nolan for her invaluable contributions to the fight against hunger in Connecticut and across the nation. Though she will be missed, I wish her all the best for many more years of health and happiness as she begins this next chapter of her life.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the Saint Lawrence School of West Haven, Connecticut as they mark their centennial anniversary--a remarkable milestone for this wonderful educational institution. The Saint Lawrence Roman Catholic Church named its first resident pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Curtin, in 1895, and it was his fondest wish that a school could be established for the parish children. Though it took much time, in 1917 construction of the Saint Lawrence School began under Father Curtin's dedicated direction. Soon, four classrooms were ready and three Sisters of St. Joseph Chambery arrived to begin teaching. The school quickly grew, both physically and in student population, and within a decade, configurations for grades 1 through 8 were completed. Throughout its 100-year history, thousands of students have passed through the halls of Saint Lawrence School, receiving educational nourishment of the mind, body, and soul. Since its inception, students of Saint Lawrence School have not only received an academic education but have also learned the importance of giving back to one's community. In its earliest days during World War II, the school served as a fallout shelter with water and food stored in the basement. Students and staff worked diligently to raise scholarship funds and plan community social activities. It was a Catholic education that taught me the best value of my time on earth is to give back to my community and my neighbors. In no small way, it moved me to serve the larger community, and instilled in me a commitment to the moral purposes of good government. Education is the cornerstone of success, opening the doors of opportunity and allowing our children to pursue their dreams. A Catholic education embodies the very best of our values, and faith, balancing academic rigor and the important lessons of service. This is particularly true for the Saint Lawrence School. Students are not only provided the skills and tools that they need academically, but they develop an appreciation and understanding of the impact their contributions can make in the world. It is from that strong foundation of academic excellence and community service that they can build their future success. A cornerstone of faith and education for a century, the Saint Lawrence School has created an educational environment which fosters the spiritual, academic, and physical growth of its students and challenges them to use their talents in service--an environment that is reflected throughout their curriculum and in the day to day activities of the students, faculty, and staff. I am proud to stand today to extend my sincere congratulations to them as they celebrate their 100th Anniversary, and wish them all the best for many more years of success.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to extend my deepest thanks and heartfelt congratulations to the SARAH Foundation of Guilford, Connecticut as they celebrate their 60th Anniversary--a remarkable milestone for this very special organization. Families with loved ones with developmental disabilities have always struggled to find the appropriate care. Indeed, throughout much of our history, there were little to no resources to address their needs. In the 1950s, families had only two choices--remain at home without support or services, often isolating both the caregivers and their loved ones, or send their loved one to an institution, often far from home and thus isolating those with disabilities from their families and communities. Recognizing this struggle and understanding the challenges families were facing, Dan and Eleanor Reinhardsen, Reeves and Dorothy Spencer, and William and Regina McNeil, pooled their resources to establish a school for children with intellectual disabilities--and SARAH was born. The Reinhardsens, Spencers, and McNeils, along with other shoreline families, worked diligently to raise funds for teachers, transportation and speech therapists. They moved from borrowed space in a church basement to a schoolhouse in North Guilford, the programs and services offered at SARAH met the academic and social needs of its students until the introduction of special education legislation providing for inclusion of children of all abilities in school districts. With education needs being met by school districts, there came a new mission for SARAH and they refocused their efforts to expand their services to include vocational training, job placement, and independent living to ease the transition from school to life in the community. The Apple Doll Tea House, the first food service training program for people with disabilities in the nation, opened its doors in Guilford in 1973. Along with the Tea House, the Apple Farm Bakery, Greenhouse horticulture program, and others provided choices in vocational employment, interaction with the public, and a close connection with communities. Today, SARAH works with businesses throughout the region, enabling hundreds of men and women to find steady, meaningful employment and build a sense of self-esteem. SARAH's first community residence was opened in Branford in 1977. Soon more homes were added in other communities as well as residences for individuals with multiple disabilities. The organization's commitment to providing a warm, nurturing environment and personalized residential care have made it a model for other agencies in Connecticut and across the country. Built from love and compassion, SARAH is an extraordinary organization that has and continues to have the most positive of impacts on the lives of those with disabilities and their families. Today, as they mark their 60th Anniversary, I am honored to offer my heartfelt congratulations and sincere thanks and appreciation for their invaluable contributions to our community, our state, and our nation.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Tower One/Tower East in New Haven, Connecticut as they mark their 50th Anniversary--a remarkable milestone for this special organization. Committed to its mission ``to provide older persons of varying means with high quality living arrangements and services based upon Jewish values and traditions,'' the Towers has been a place of care and solace to hundreds of residents over the last half century. The organization is led by a dedicated staff and outstanding Board of Directors made up of leaders from across the community. The staff and Board have worked hard over the years to meet the changing needs of their residents and, in doing so, have created a unique environment in which their seniors are assured an affordable place to live with dignity and security in their golden years. Designed by renowned architect Charles Moore and located on the southern edge of New Haven's downtown, Tower One opened its doors in 1971 and was followed a decade later by Tower East. Today, the Towers are comprised of 328 apartments that offer safe, affordable independent and assisted living as well as a full schedule of social, enrichment, and cultural programs. The Towers has been recognized both locally and nationally with multiple best practice awards from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Connecticut Assisted Living Association The Towers have always been a special place to me. When my mother, Luisa, served on the City's Board of Aldermen, she was fortunate enough to have been invited to attend and speak at the opening ceremony and ribbon-cutting at the Towers. As an elected official, she focused much of her attention on seniors. She visited the various senior centers and housing facilities to talk with the residents. She continued those visits on my behalf after I was elected to Congress. The Towers, its residents and staff alike, always welcomed her with open arms and have extended that same warmth to me over the years. The Towers are so much more than a group of buildings--it is a community. I am honored to have this opportunity to rise today to extend my sincere thanks and heartfelt congratulations to the Board of Directors and staff, past and present, of Tower One/Tower East as they mark their 50th Anniversary. Mazel Tov.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed Roll Call vote number 516 regarding ``On Motion to Recommit with Instructions'' (H.R. 3697). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 517 ``On Passage of the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act'' (H.R. 3697). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 518 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 192'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 519 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 195'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 520 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 196'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 521 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 199'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 522 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 200'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 523 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 201'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 524 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 204'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 525 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 207'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 526 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 223'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, 1 would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 527 ``On Motion to Recommit with Instructions'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 528 ``On Passage of Making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for other purposes'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 529 ``On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended the Joint Counterterrorism Awareness Workshop Series Act'' (H.R. 3284). 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 486 regarding ``On Ordering the Previous Question'' (H. Res. 513). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 487 regarding ``On Agreeing to the Resolution'' (H. Res. 513). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 488 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 73'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 489 regarding ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 74'' (H.R. 3354) Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 490 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 75'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 491 regarding ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 76'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 492 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 77'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 493 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 87'' (H.R. 3354) Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 494 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 105'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 495 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 113'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 496 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 117'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 497 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 124'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 498 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 125'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 499 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 131'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 500 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 134'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 501 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 138'' (H.R. 3354) Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 502 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 145'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 503 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 154'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 504 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 155'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 505 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 160'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 506 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 161'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 507 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 164'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 508 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 167'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 509 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 168'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 510 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 170'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 511 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 172'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 512 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 173'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 513 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 174'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. I missed Roll Call vote number 514 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 186'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. I missed Roll Call vote number 515 ``On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 187'' (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed Roll Call vote number 485 regarding ``On Motion to Suspend the Rules'' (H.R. 2611). 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 480 regarding Motion to Concur (H.R. 601). Had I been present, I would have voted Yes; I missed Roll Call vote number 481 regarding On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 55 (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted No; I missed Roll Call vote number 482 On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 56 (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted No; I missed Roll Call vote number 483 regarding On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 57 (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted Yes; and I missed Roll Call vote number 484 On Agreeing to the Amendment, Amendment No. 63 (H.R. 3354). Had I been present, I would have voted No.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained, and so I missed Roll Call vote number 439 regarding Financial Stability Oversight Council Insurance Member Continuity Act. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea. I also missed Roll Call vote number 440 regarding Improving Access to Capital Act, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, which would protect DREAMers like Gladys. She has been able to buy a home and a car with her healthcare job.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. While I am glad to see the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies bill on the floor, this is the first time it has been considered with amendments since the 2010 appropriations cycle. But even with that, I cannot support the underlying bill. I will be blunt. This process is a sham. The combined omnibus would violate the Budget Control Act caps. It triggers a sequester of $72 billion from the Department of Defense. I am troubled to see the Labor- HHS bill, once again, bearing the brunt of Republican budget cuts. The overall cuts to nondefense discretionary spending is $8 billion, and the Labor-HHS bill is cut by more than $5 billion. This cut, by the way, is completely unnecessary because the allocations that we approved are approximately $5 billion below what they have said we need for nondefense spending, which is allowed under the Budget Control Act. We have the resources available, yet the majority refuses to allocate them to the essential programs funded through this bill. I will also note that when adjusting for inflation, the Labor-HHS bill is approximately $30 billion below what it was in 2010. Instead of moving this bill, we ought to be negotiating a bipartisan budget deal to lift the sequestration caps on both defense and nondefense programs, then we could begin working on a bipartisan basis to draft a reasonable Labor-HHS bill that adequately funds the programs that support the middle class. The biggest economic challenge of our time is that too many people are in jobs that just don't pay them enough to live on. The programs in this bill provide opportunities for hardworking Americans to improve themselves and for our economy to grow. We need a country that works for the middle class and the vulnerable, not just the wealthy and those with the most lobbyists. Right now, we grow jobs, but not incomes. The Federal Government has long played a key role in helping American workers learn and grow through workforce development and connecting businesses with talent. But the programs that help grow our economy, educate our students, and protect our women and seniors cannot operate if the Labor-HHS bill is starved for funding, which is why I oppose the underlying bill. I admit that there are a few bright spots. I strongly support the increases for NIH research, emergency preparedness, special education, and the TRIO and GEAR UP programs. Unfortunately, the modest increases in this bill are far outweighed by decimating cuts to programs that ought to be seeing increases. This bill fails our students and is fundamentally anti-teacher. It fails to make new investments in Title I. It eliminates $2 billion for supporting effective instruction grants--what that is is teacher training. This bill's approach to women's health pushes a dangerous and harmful ideological agenda and eliminates funding for Title X Family Planning. It also eliminates the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, and it includes ideological riders that would block funding for Planned Parenthood and effectively block lifesaving research that use stem cells from fetal tissue. The bill cuts access to the Mental Health Block Grant and the Substance Abuse Prevention Program. It cuts nurse training, tobacco prevention, and it completely eliminates the Minority HIV/AIDS Initiative. It hurts workers by eliminating the Employment Service, which helped nearly 6 million unemployed workers, including veterans, find jobs in 2015. It eliminates grants expanding the highly effective Registered Apprenticeship model that connects jobseekers with good-paying jobs that employers are desperate to fill. It also cuts funding for other job training programs like Job Corps and the Dislocated Workers Program. Why would we eliminate programs that for so long have been about economic opportunity and a ladder to the middle class? There are the riders, which I mentioned. This bill blocks funding for the Affordable Care Act. It continues to prohibit funding for gun violence prevention, which has had a chilling effect on gun violence research. Finally, it prohibits the Department of Labor from ensuring that financial advisers act in the best interests of their clients. This week we expect to see several more harmful riders added to the bill. At full committee markup, we proposed more than 40 amendments to strengthen and improve this bill, but the majority rejected all of them. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this minibus because the funding in this bill fails to meet our country's needs, and it breaks our promises to women, to seniors, to students, and to our workforce. While I am strongly opposed to this bill, I do want to thank the committee staff--majority and minority--the ranking member; the chair of the committee; and the chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Cole.