Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill which would give workers less flexibility and less pay. The economic challenge of our time is that people are in jobs today that just don't pay them enough to live on. They are struggling to make ends meet. This bill would make that worse. It forces workers to decide between time-and-a-half overtime pay and paid time off when they work more than 40 hours a week. It enables employers to exert more control over employees' wages and hours that hinders a worker's ability to plan family time, to have flexible and stable schedules, and, yes, to make ends meet. Rather than helping American workers earn better wages and more time off, this bill creates more power for employers to delay paying overtime wages for as long as 13 months. For people who need to work extra hours to pay those bills, this legislation forces them into an impossible choice between time and money with no guarantee of time off. This bill is nothing more than a false promise of time off and a pay cut. Working Americans deserve better. We have an obligation to pursue public policy that puts workers before corporations. Instead of forcing bad choices for workers about their time off, we ought to bring the Healthy Families Act to the floor which would enable workers to earn paid sick days, because no one should have to choose between getting healthy and putting food on the table. Instead of considering this legislation which will hurt workers and their ability to earn fair wages, we should be considering the FAMILY Act, which would create a national paid leave insurance program to allow workers to take time off while they are caring for a new child, a seriously ill family member, or their own serious health conditions. Instead of undermining workers' schedules, we should be considering the Schedules That Work Act, which gives workers more control over their schedules, offers them real predictability and stability in their shifts and in their work hours. These are the policies that workers need, policies that reflect the realities of working in America today, the challenges that workers face. This bill goes in the opposite direction. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to join the communities of the Naugatuck Valley as they pay tribute to the outstanding and incalculable contributions of Jack Walsh by honoring him with the 47th Annual Charles H. Flynn Humanitarian Award. The oldest award of its kind, this prestigious honor is bestowed each year to a member of the Valley community in recognition of their lifetime commitment to service. A life-long resident of Derby, Connecticut, Jack dedicated his personal and professional life to enriching the many communities of the Naugatuck Valley and improving the quality of life for all of its residents. Jack began his career as a teacher in Shelton and Derby, a high school basketball coach in Shelton, and the Director of the Derby Recreation Camp. In each of these roles, Jack helped to shape the hearts and minds of the next generations of Valley residents, ensuring that they had access to educational opportunities and provided a strong foundation on which to build their future success. In 1989, Jack began his tenure as President & CEO of the Valley United Way--a career which spanned nearly thirty years until his retirement just last November. Under his tenure the organization grew as a community resource with the addition of the Youth Leadership Program, the Volunteer Action Center, and the partner Agency Council, which has since expanded to become the Valley Council for Health & Human Services. Jack also helped to spearhead the Valley's successful effort in the All-America City competition. In addition to his professional contributions, Jack is an active member of the community. His seemingly innumerable titles include Chair of the Electronic Valley project, President of the Board of Directors at the Derby Neck Library, member and past president of both the Derby/ Shelton Rotary Club and the Ancient Order of Hibernians, past President of the Board of Directors for the Derby Historical Society and former member of the board of directors for the Hallock's Landing Senior Housing Project. He served on the Valley Advisory Committee for the Community Foundation for Greater New Haven, is a Corporator for Griffin Hospital and a member and past Co-chair of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Yale/Griffin Prevention Resource Center. Jack is a member of the Board of Directors for the Online Journalism Project, the parent organization for the Valley Independent Sentinel as well as one of the founders and a committee member for the Commodore Hull Thanksgiving Day 5K Road Race. Past Chair of Derby's Park & Recreation Commission, current Chair of the City's Greenway Committee, as well as co-Chair of the Naugatuck River Greenway Committee, his efforts have changed the very face of the Naugatuck Valley. Jack's incredible service has been recognized by many over the years with a myriad of awards and commendations. He is recipient of the Greater Valley Chamber of Commerce's Gold Seal Award, the Lewis Savitsky Staff Excellence Award, the Hazel Knapp Award for regional leadership as well as the Derby Historical Society's Dr. John I. Howe Award just to name a few. He was named to the Boys & Girls Club of the Lower Naugatuck Valley Alumni Association Hall of Fame and honored by the Lower Naugatuck Valley Bar Association with their Liberty Bell Award. The YMCA presented him with their Strong Community Builder Award and the Women and Heart Disease Committee at Griffin Hospital presented him with their ``Caring Heart'' Award. Tonight, marking his lifetime of service, Jack Walsh is presented with the Charles H. Flynn Humanitarian Award--and I cannot think of a more deserving individual to recognize for their commitment, dedication, and extraordinary good work. I am honored to join the communities of the Naugatuck Valley in thanking Jack for his unparalleled public service--his is a legacy that will not soon be matched and most certainly will continue to inspire service in others for generations to come.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the National Endowments of the Arts and the Humanities. The Trump Administration has proposed completely defunding these two essential organizations. President Trump's budget would eliminate the NEA's $148 million budget, the NEH's $148 million budget--accounting for less than .03 percent of total discretionary spending. Yet the impact they make on our communities is enormous. While all fifty states would be negatively impacted by these cuts, rural communities would be hit the hardest. According to the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, approximately 25 percent of NEA block-grant funds go to rural communities and 54 percent to low-income areas. A nation without arts is one without an identity. In the words of one of my heroes, the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, ``The arts are not a frill. The arts are a response to our individuality and our nature, and help to shape our identity. Art has the potential to unify. It can speak in many languages without a translator. The arts do not discriminate. The arts can lift us up.'' And they do. Artists have used their mediums to process their experiences--and to share their perspectives with all of us. There is no more valuable gift. We must defend this funding.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the previous question and to the rule. If we defeat this rule, we can enable the House of Representatives to vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act. Today is Equal Pay Day. This is the day that the average woman's earnings finally catch up to what the average man made last year--and we are 94 days into 2017. Women are nearly half the workforce, yet they still only earn about 80 cents, on average, to a man's dollar. The gap widens even further when you consider women of color. African-American women make 63 cents on the dollar, while Latinas make only 54 cents, on average, compared with White men. This is unacceptable. The National Women's Law Center found that, based on today's wage gap, a woman starting her career will lose $418,800 over a 40-year career. For African-American women, the losses are $840,000. For Latinas, the lifetime gap is over $1 million. This disparity, by the way, exists at all levels of education and occupation--even at the very top. The world champion U.S. women's soccer team is fighting for pay equity, as are Academy Award-winning actresses like Emma Stone and Viola Davis, who have used their platforms to call for equal pay in Hollywood. The fact that women at the top of their field feel the repercussions of this issue speaks to its pervasiveness. Women from the boardroom to the factory floor and in every industry in every State are hurt by the wage gap. The biggest issue of our time is that people are not making enough to live on, and their jobs just don't pay them enough money. Pay inequity does not just affect women; it affects children, families, and our economy as a whole, and that is because women in this country are the sole or co-breadwinner in half of families with children today. I first introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act on June 24, 1997, almost 20 years ago. The Paycheck Fairness Act will mean real progress in the fight to eliminate the gender wage gap and help families. The act ensures that employers who try to justify paying a man more than a woman for the same job must show the disparity is not sex-based but job-related and necessary. It prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who discuss or disclose salary information with their coworkers. The bill would allow women to join together in class action lawsuits where there are allegations of sex-based pay discrimination. This bill, by the way, has passed the House of Representatives twice in a bipartisan way. Today we have 198 cosponsors of that bill, and, yes, it is bipartisan. We can pass this piece of legislation in this body. We have not been able to get it to the President's desk despite the fact that this is an issue that affects every single State in this country. Every year I hope we never have to recognize this day again because equal pay will be the law of the land. Men and women in the same job deserve the same pay. It is true in the House of Representatives; it should be true all over this country. We are men and women in this body who come from different parts of the country with different skill sets, different educational backgrounds, and different philosophies, and, yes, we get paid the same amount of money. Let's make sure that the Paycheck Fairness Act is the law of the land. The time has come for equal pay.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it has been a remarkable coalition, and it is standing strong. It stands strong. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for being a central and integral part of this effort. I appreciate that.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, what a great compliment from someone who is a tigress when it comes to making sure that the working people in her community are represented--that their interests, their families, and their economic security are represented--and who fights on a daily basis to make sure that our families have the economic wherewithal with which to succeed. The gentlewoman from Ohio is someone who really knows that the biggest problem that we face today in this Nation is that people are in jobs that just don't pay them enough; and that they can't make it, that they are struggling. When you lay on top of that the direction that our trade agreements have taken us, it reinforces the fact of their lack of wages and of income inequality. And you can't have a discussion about income inequality in this Nation today without starting with wages. I am struck by those people who tell us that all of this wage stagnation and income inequality is the fault of globalization and technology. No, that is not the case. You just listen to Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz, who said that this inequality and the depression of wages has come from public policy choices. And we have made the wrong public policy choices, as has been evidenced by my colleague's comments. We support a trade policy that puts American workers before corporate interests. And although President Trump made trade a central focus of his campaign and he promised to fight for working men and women, the broken promises are piling up. I am deeply disturbed--I know my colleague is--that President Trump's Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, has suggested that the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is a good place to start for the NAFTA renegotiations. Working men and women deserve a new North American Free Trade Agreement, not more of the same corporate-driven trade policies of the failed Trans-Pacific Partnership--an agreement, as I said, that, as a candidate, President Trump opposed. He spoke all over the country and told people that it had to go, that he was going to renegotiate NAFTA. This is not the only about-face that this administration has taken on trade. If you listen to the Economic Policy Institute, China's past cheating to manipulate the value of their money has left over 5 million Americans without good-paying jobs. Yet, President Trump has failed to deliver on declaring China a currency manipulator. He said he was going to do that on day one. And he has yet to act on countering our massive $347 billion trade deficit with China. He missed his promised deadline to start NAFTA renegotiation in his first 100 days. He has already reneged on his Buy American promise that American steel would be required for the Keystone XL pipeline. They have waived that requirement, and my colleague knows deeply what has happened to steel workers.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this has been happening all along in so many sectors. When you talk about the various agreements and NAFTA--and actually with regard to currency--what we fought for in the Trans- Pacific Partnership Agreement was to do something about currency manipulation because everything that may have been negotiated in the NAFTA agreement with tariffs and lowering them and all of that, all of that was for naught when Mexico devalued the peso. Once you do that, then your goods are cheaper than our goods and we suffer. It is the same thing that has happened in Korea, and this is what we were looking at in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Despite the Oval Office fanfare last Friday, President Trump's recent executive orders are, frankly, nothing but window dressing. While initiating a new Federal report--a new Federal report, God, there must be unbelievable cavernous institutions and places where we have Federal reports which go nowhere--what they are about is a common way to avoid fixing any problems that we have. The real test is going to be whether or not the Trump administration takes action to create jobs and to reduce the trade deficit. Improving our trade policy requires new rules, not more of the status quo. And it was Mr. Ross who, I believe, said that: My gosh, you can't throw out the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. You have to fiddle around the edges with it. That is where they are going. Again, they are betraying the promises that were made to those workers in your district, those workers in my district, and workers all across the country.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely right. That was a central part of the election last November. Improving our trade policy requires new rules, as I said, not more status quo. We have to push a trade agenda that will create good-paying jobs and that is going to raise wages here at home. And our coalition is going to continue to hold this administration accountable. What we need to do is to try to reshape the trajectory of modern globalization, one that doesn't exacerbate that economic problem that I spoke about people being in jobs that just don't pay them enough money. The NAFTA agreement put people at such grave risk. I know that the gentlewoman can recall this as well: we both stood on this House floor all those years ago and we said we were going to lose jobs, that we were going to increase the trade deficit, and that this was not an agreement that would benefit the working men and women of this country. At that time, quite frankly, we were told by the then-Clinton administration that we were thugs, that we did not understand what was happening, that we were protectionist, all kinds of labels against the thinking that we said that this was not going to benefit us.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we said it then. What we didn't have at that time was the data, which is now right here on this floor of the House, which is why we were able to defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, because they couldn't fool us again. They could not fool us again. Not us. They couldn't fool the American people again. We are not going down that road, not with a reheated Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement or a tweaked North American Free Trade Agreement. I said we have to reshape that trajectory of modern globalization. It is a trajectory that needs to benefit American workers. It has to foster inclusive growth. This is not just about large corporations and special interests that will be the beneficiaries of trade agreements. It is about trade agreements that grow our economy, that grow the economic security of the people of this country. Implementing a new model is not going to be easy. It isn't going to be easy; we know that. But with so much on the line, we understand that it is our obligation to put the American people first, to set those new rules for a 21st century economy and give it our all. We are going to be absolutely vigilant with where the discussions and the negotiations go on a renegotiated NAFTA agreement and future trade agreements that we may embark on. We are not afraid of trade. We just want it to work for the people of this country, and we don't want to do what has happened to the folks in Mexico and to other countries as well. First and foremost, I will just say that we have to be cognizant of the repercussions on the standard of living and the quality of life that our people in the United States have. These trade agreements have worked against that, and it is not going to happen again.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the healthcare proposal proposed by President Trump and Speaker Ryan raises premiums and deductibles. It imposes an age tax on older Americans, making their health care unaffordable. It throws millions--24 million--Americans off of their insurance. It shifts the cost of health care to the States, and it covers less and less people. It raises people's fears and insecurities about what this will do if they get sick. It ends maternity care. It is quite outrageous when it tells you that you can't go for emergency services any longer. It would allow insurance companies to, once again, reimpose lifetime limits and annual caps. It allows insurance companies to charge women 48 percent more for the same insurance that any man would pay for. So why would you be for this? Why? Who benefits? Who benefits? We are going to provide 400 of the richest families in this Nation with a $7 million tax cut every year. Those are not my words. Take a look at what Families USA says. Take a look at what the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says about that. Working people and older Americans are going to pay for a tax cut for the richest people in this Nation. Older Americans are going to be hit the hardest. Not only are they going to get an age tax, but they are going to shift $170 billion out of the Medicare trust fund--a lifeline for older Americans. Do you know what? It makes me believe that this is the case: What does the GOP stand for? Get Old People. That is what this bill does. That is what people are going to vote ``yes'' for today. Let me just say this: We have an obligation. We have an obligation to the people of this country to vote ``no'' today on this misrepresented bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the healthcare plan supported by President Trump and Speaker Ryan will raise premiums and deductibles. Let's tell the truth here on the floor of the House of Representatives. It will raise premiums and deductibles. It will throw millions off of their insurance. It will shift the cost of health care to the States who are fiscally strapped today, causing a rationing of care at the State level. And, yes, it will cover less and less people and raise the insecurity that people have today about whether or not, if they get an illness or someone in their family does, they are going to have healthcare coverage. The result is that working people, older Americans, will pay more; and, in fact, with older Americans, it will impose an age tax. The irony of this is that working people and older Americans are going to be paying for the tax breaks in this bill, tax breaks to millionaires and to billionaires. I will explain. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that 14 million Americans will lose coverage in 2018; 24 million Americans will lose their insurance coverage by 2026. In my State of Connecticut, 220,300 individuals are projected to lose their health insurance by 2026. Again, older Americans will be hit the hardest. They will see their premiums spike. Yes, it is an age tax. And the reckless cuts in this bill rob, in addition to this, it robs the Medicare trust fund, which people rely on, of over $170 billion, shortening the life of that trust fund by years. Long-term care that older Americans rely on will be hurt, as well as folks who are disabled. And children will be hurt as well. Over the next 10 years--and again, these are not my numbers, but the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that two of the tax breaks in the repeal bill will provide $275 billion in tax cuts to individuals who have an income over $200,000, and nearly $190 billion will go to tax cuts for health insurance companies. Do we believe that they are hurting? It is also going to provide a tax break for drug companies, for pharmaceutical companies. Are they hurting today? No. They are reaping profits every single day. That is the case with medical device manufacturers as well. While the wealthiest Americans and corporations reap the benefits of this Trump bill and Ryan bill, roughly 160 million households with incomes below that $200,000 level will pay for the repeal of these taxes. I have heard from thousands of my constituents about how the Affordable Care Act has positively impacted their lives. I have submitted testimony for the record from women in my district who depend on the Affordable Care Act to manage life-threatening illnesses, get back to work, get them the mental health services that they need. Just think of that injustice when you think about Mnikesa Whitaker, whom I spoke to just 2 weeks ago. She has an autoimmune disease which is called scleroderma. I regret to say that this has put her life in danger, but she now has the protection because she is no longer threatened by preexisting conditions. In her words, she said: ``I will die without the Affordable Care Act.'' We have a moral obligation not to let Mnikesa or others down. We have an obligation to older Americans and to the middle class of this country, to working people. The Affordable Care Act needs to be changed in critical ways. Premiums and deductibles are way too high and are putting too much strain on families who barely make enough to live on. We know that because their wages have not kept pace with rising costs. There is not enough competition in the marketplaces. But instead of repealing the Affordable Care Act, we should be working our hearts out to make the big fixes that are necessary. But my friends, that starts with defeating this wrongheaded bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am so honored to join my colleagues here tonight. I thank the gentlewoman for taking the lead in this effort. There really is such an urgency to this debate and to what is happening on the floor of this House. I rise to voice my opposition to the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, but the urgency of the debate is because tomorrow, in this Chamber, in the people's House, House Republicans are prepared to vote on a healthcare plan which is supported by President Trump and by Speaker Paul Ryan. What is at stake on this vote tomorrow in this House? What happens to people in this country with this vote tomorrow? There is real clarity here. We will see families pay higher premiums and higher deductibles. This plan will increase out-of-pocket costs to working Americans. In addition to that, older Americans will be faced with what has been described as an age tax. Those Americans who are 50 to 64 years old will pay premiums five times higher than what others pay for health coverage, no matter how healthy they are. There will be less coverage because we are going to take away health care for 24 million hardworking Americans. And for older Americans, once again, something that they rely on in terms of healthcare coverage is what happens to Medicare. Well, Medicare and the trust fund for Medicare will have a shortened life by 2 or 3 years because it takes $170 billion from the Medicare trust fund. To do what? What does all of this mean? Who benefits from this legislation that my Republican colleagues want to pass tomorrow and who are strong-arming their own Members to vote for it? Who benefits? Don't take my word for it, but the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that two of the tax breaks in the repeal bill will give a $275 billion tax cut to individuals with incomes over $200,000; $190 billion in tax cuts for insurance companies and drug companies who are making a fortune, for medical device manufacturers who are making a fortune. And so what is the balance? It is working Americans, older Americans who are going to pay increased costs for premiums and deductibles, and the wealthiest corporations and individuals are going to get a $600 billion tax cut. I will make one final comment because this is where the values of this Nation come into play, and when you think about a young woman in my district, Mnikesa Whitaker. She is 36 years old. She has an autoimmune disease known as scleroderma. She cannot breathe without an oxygen tank. She cannot work any longer at 36 years old. What she says to me is, without the Affordable Care Act, each day is one day less in her life. We cannot let the Mnikesa Whitakers all over this Nation down in order to be able to take care of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and increase the costs to working Americans and older Americans. We have an opportunity to say no tomorrow and defeat this Republican healthcare plan supported by the President and the Speaker of this House, which will only do great damage to the health care of the people of this great Nation.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the testimony of one of my constituents. Her name is Mnikesa Whitaker-Haaheim. She is a fifth-generation, college-educated woman, founder of Ballet Haven, a rigorous dance training program. She is an English teacher who has won the Teacher of the Year award twice. And I regret to tell you that she is also living with and dying from a debilitating disease, and these are her words: ``The debate about healthcare has turned into something of a spectacle--as if it exists apart from the flesh and bones that are experiencing the consequences of the decisions being made. I think it is exceedingly important to talk about the felt experience of illness. ``The feeling like an elephant's sitting on my chest--daily--because I have pulmonary fibrosis. No, I have never smoked. Not cigarettes. Not anything. Ever. I am simply sick. The feeling of my leg bones splintering, waking me up with the pain, several times a night, several times a week. Each leg is splayed beneath me as if I'd fallen from a window. Of course that's not what happened. This is just what joints and muscles feel like as part of my rare disease. ``The feeling of having a widespread flu-like, bone-crushing ache that does not end. I don't have the flu. I have a rare, autoimmune disease. This is what my entire body feels like 90 percent of the time. The feeling of choking without warning, regularly on coffee. On water. On my own spit. This is what my disease feels like. ``The feelings I'm talking about are what it is like to not be able to take a deep breath, ever, because over 70 percent of my lungs have turned to hardened, stony, scar tissue. The feeling of not even remembering what it is like to take a deep breath. ``Because my particular disease is one that is categorized as autoimmune, it would be several months before we got the correct diagnosis; autoimmunity is notoriously difficult to diagnose. ``And unless you are a specialized medical professional or happen to know someone who is afflicted by rheumatoid disorders, you have likely never heard of what I have: anti-synthetase syndrome--scleroderma. It is rare, progressive, and aggressive. Often it is fatal, especially with the amount of lung damage that I have incurred. ``When after 2 years of chemotherapy, the progression of my pulmonary fibrosis and overall disease process was not successfully remaining stable, I had to go on supplemental oxygen. Within 6 months, I was getting so sick that I eventually had to medically retire at 36 years old; it was a heartbreaking decision. ``I loved my job, and I was good at it. Without the protections afforded to me through the Affordable Care Act, my oxygen, the cost of seeing my numerous specialists, paying for 14 medications, admissions to the hospital, and life-threatening emergency trips to the ER would be nothing short of financially catastrophic for my family. ``A rare disease like mine baffles many doctors. It has not been uncommon for my caretakers to have to spend hours on the phone with insurance companies fighting for a drug that is literally thousands of dollars but necessary for my treatment. ``When you have a rare illness, you often have to try new things. Insurance companies will unabashedly see you as a risk. Why? You are expensive, rare and dying. That is an unholy trinity. ``But since the Affordable Care Act, my medications have been affordable. Access to care is not accessible if you cannot afford it, and what the ACA has done is create a safeguard so that the care that my doctors have prescribed for one of their sickest patients is truly accessible to that patient because I can afford it. ``I come from a family who has, for generations, always worked and always paid into `the system.' There are next to no services available for a relatively young woman like me at social services. I know. I've checked. I am not old enough for a full teacher's pension, but do receive a small disability allowance. I receive a small Social Security check, but I am well below the poverty level. ``I need you to understand that people like me are not asking for anything for free. I am willing to continue to pay for the quality health care that I have had. I am willing for there to be changes made to it.'' ``I find it unconscionable, however, that decisions can be made regarding life and death without actual regard for the felt lives and actual deaths that you will be responsible for if you repeal the ACA. ``I do not know the course that my disease will take. But I have the blood of some powerful ancestors flowing in me, and their fight for life continues in me as well. I am honored to do so in their memory and on behalf of the millions of Americans who do not have the words or the ability to speak for themselves yet are terrified of losing their affordable, solid coverage under the ACA.'' Those were her words--and she is not alone in her fear of repeal. Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record testimony from other women in my district whose lives have been changed by the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, we owe it to Mnikesa and everyone like her across the country to protect their health care and to reject this repeal bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the testimony of one of my constituents--Mnikesa Whitaker-Haaheim. She is an English teacher who has won teacher of the year twice. She is also living with and dying from a debilitating disease. These are her words: ``The debate about healthcare has turned into something of a spectacle--as if it exists apart from the flesh and bones that are experiencing the consequences of the decisions being made. I think it is exceedingly important to talk about the felt experience of illness. The feeling like an elephant's sitting on my chest--daily--because I have pulmonary fibrosis. No, I have never smoked. Not cigarettes. Not anything. Ever. I am simply sick. The feeling of my leg bones splintering, waking me up with the pain, several times a night, several times a week. Each leg is splayed beneath me as if I'd fallen from a window. Of course that's not what happened. This is just what joints and muscles feel like as a part of my rare disease. The feeling of having a widespread flu-like, bone-crushing ache that does not end. I don't have the flu. I have a rare, autoimmune disease. This is what my entire body feels like 90% of the time. The feeling of choking without warning, regularly on coffee. On water. On my own spit. This is what my disease feels like. The feelings I'm talking about are what it is like to not be able to take a deep breath, ever, because over 70% of my lungs have turned to hardened, stony, scar tissue. The feeling of not even remembering what it is like to take a deep breath. Because my particular disease is one that is categorized as autoimmune, it would be several months before we got the correct diagnosis; autoimmunity is notoriously difficult to diagnose. And unless you are a specialized medical professional or happen to know someone who is afflicted by rheumotoid disorders, you have likely never heard of what I have: anti-synthetase syndrome. It is rare, progressive and aggressive. Often it is fatal, especially with the amount of lung damage that I have incurred. When after over 2 years of chemotherapy, the progression of my pulmonary fibrosis and overall disease process was not successfully remaining stable, I had to go on supplemental oxygen. Within 6 months, I was getting so sick that I eventually had to medically retire at 36 years old; it was a heartbreaking decision. I loved my job, and I was very good at it. Without the protections afforded to me through the Affordable Care Act, my oxygen, the cost of seeing my numerous specialists, paying for 14 medications, admissions to the hospital, and life-threatening emergency trips to the ER would be nothing short of financially catastrophic for my family. A rare disease like mine baffles many doctors. It has not been uncommon for my caretakers to have to spend hours on the phone with insurance companies fighting for a drug that is literally thousands of dollars but necessary for my treatment. When you have a rare illness, you often have to try new things. Insurance companies will unabashedly see you as a risk. Why? You are expensive, rare and dying. That is an unholy trinity. But since the Affordable Care Act, my medications have been affordable. Access to care is NOT accessible if you cannot afford it, and what the ACA has done is create a safeguard so that the care that my doctors have prescribed for one of their sickest patients is truly accessible to that patient because I can afford it. I come from a family who has, for generations, always worked and always paid into ``the system.'' There are next to no services available for a relatively young woman like me at Social Services; I know. I've checked. I am not old enough for a full teacher's pension, but do receive a small disability allowance. I need you to understand that people like me are not asking for anything for free. I am willing to continue to pay for the quality healthcare that I have had. I am willing for there to be changes made to it. I find it unconscionable, however, that decisions can be made regarding life and death without actual regard for the felt lives and actual deaths that you will be responsible for if you repeal the ACA. I do not know the course that my disease will take. But I have the blood of some powerful ancestors flowing in me, and their fight for life continues in me as well. I am honored to do so in their memory and on behalf of the millions of Americans who do not have the words or the ability to speak for themselves yet are terrified of losing their affordable, solid coverage under the ACA.'' Those were her words--and she is not alone in her fear of repeal. We owe it to Mnikesa and everyone like her across the country to protect their health care--and to reject this repeal bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I enter the powerful words of my constituent, Alexis Dececchi, who supports the Affordable Care Act and the protections it provides our most vulnerable citizens. ``Hi, my name is Alexis Dececchi. I want to thank Congresswoman DeLauro for taking the time out of her busy schedule to gather us here so we can tell our stories about the ACA. I would not be standing here today if it weren't for the ACA. I think everyone who has developed a major health problem remembers ``that day''-- the day everything changed. For me, that day was December 28th, 2012. I refer to this as my second birthday. During the night of the 28th, my body mounted an inflammatory autoimmune attack against my nervous system, causing me to suffer brain damage. When I awoke, portions of my memory, processing, and visual system had been compromised. Months of fearful confusion followed until the cause was discovered: I had a cellular immunodeficiency affecting my natural killer cells. This caused me to be more susceptible to viral and fungal infections. This susceptibility also caused autoimmune inflammation in my nervous system and brain. Without the protection of the ACA, I would be defined as having a pre-existing condition, and be subject to expensive, high-risk insurance pools, or potentially be uninsured. Without insurance, I would be unable to afford the experimental antivirals and the biweekly infusions of immunoglobulin that I need, which currently cost over $8000 every month. A reinstatement of lifetime policy caps would also endanger my access to this treatment. Since receiving my infusions, I have seen improvements in my condition. I have fewer seizures and cognitive issues, and I've regained some of my physical strength. This year, I was finally able to return to the workforce and hold down a part- time job. None of this would be possible for me without the ACA. Though I have improved, there is no cure for my condition, and I will require these treatments indefinitely. Without them, I would start to backslide physically and develop dementia-like symptoms. The chronic illness and disability community is one of the country's biggest minority groups, but one of the most overlooked. Because of the nature of our disabilities, it has been hard for us to organize, especially if each day is a fight for survival. We should have the equal rights and protections of other minority groups in this country. Right now, our current administration is fighting over policies and ideals, but what we are fighting for is survival. That is a very different type of struggle and one that we cannot afford to lose. The ACA was a step in the right direction for millions of Americans. We can't take a step back. I want to continue to move forward in my life, and I want to do the same for other chronically ill individuals. We need to stand together, and stand with, our representatives who understand that healthcare is a right, not a privilege.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I enter the powerful words of my constituent, Shelta Wilson, who supports the Affordable Care Act and the protections it provides our most vulnerable citizens. ``Let me introduce myself. My name is Shelta Wilson. I am 37 years old, and I operate a home daycare business in New Haven, Connecticut. It would be my pleasure to tell you why affordable healthcare is important to me. A couple of years ago, I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. At that time, I have no health insurance, and my health was seriously declining. It was impossible for me to run my business with these health issues. Through networking, I was informed on where to go for affordable healthcare. It is called Access Health Exchange, and I was approved by them immediately. I was able to get the supplies and medication I needed to run by business. As of right now, I and 100% free of diabetes and the medication that went with it. I feel good and truly know that without Access Health Exchange and the Affordable Care Act, I would not be able to stand here and talk to you guys today about how important it is to have affordable health care. Having health insurance truly saved my life.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I enter the powerful words of my constituent, Maggie Quinn, who supports the Affordable Care Act and the protections it provides our most vulnerable citizens. ``On December 7, 1991 I fell and broke my back in two places. Fortunately I have regained most of my mobility but at the time it ended my career in the professional theatre. I pulled myself together and with my husband started small business which has kept us afloat. I was doubly fortunate during those years to be able to retain vested beyond COBRA medical insurance for both of us through my union, Actor's Equity Association. Then, in 2000, my husband was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis--so we both then had ``pre-existing conditions.'' The ACA insurance covered his treatment and drugs, we kept our business going, and were proud that we were at no time a burden on our state or society as a whole, but by 2013, the last year of my AEA coverage, our combined premiums and co- pays neared 40% of our net income. After the Affordable Care Act was passed and Connecticut opened its insurance exchange, my union terminated my insurance eligibility and, because I had an ACA option available in Connecticut, and because my premiums were less than the union's costs to cover us. At the time, our premiums alone were over 18,000 a year, a severe financial hardship for two self-employed 58 year olds, and I knew even then that we would not be able to sustain them for much longer. Because of the ACA and the Connecticut exchange, we were able to enroll in a terrific plan, with a reasonable deductible and, with the tax credit figured in, with premiums less than half of what we had been paying. Every year since 2014, our premiums have decreased (they are about 6,000$ a year now) and our deductibles have not risen commensurately. We have been well cared for, my husband's drug costs, which at retail would be approximately 5,000 a month, have not crippled us, and we have continued to work at our small business, to pay our federal, state, local and corporate taxes, and contribute to the prosperity of our town, our state, and the economy of or nation. We have been able to put money away for our eventual retirement. Now, with the impending repeal of the ACA, that is all in jeopardy. My husband's Great Grandmother also had Rheumatoid arthritis, and her obituary in the Waterbury Republican/ American says she spent the last ten years of her life in bed. Ms. DeLauro, I am, quite frankly, terrified that this is the prospect that awaits my husband without the safeties of the ACA. It will mean the end of our business, and the end of our livelihood, the end of our ability to pay taxes and support our customers, our community, and our state. At nearly 62, with the medical problems we both have, we are not realistically employable by any company large enough to provide medical insurance. If the ACA tax credits and the mandate that preexisting conditions cannot factor in insurance coverage are done away with, we are likely to end up in a high risk pool at best, and what would those self-pay premiums be now, given inflation? $25,000 a year? $30,000? We simply cannot afford it. And without the ACA mandated removal of lifetime caps, my husband will surely cap out given his high drug costs. I cannot really express the depths of my fear that we risk becoming burdens on our state and its already stretched social safety net. The ACA has given us the promise of whole, useful working lives without the fear of penury. Please, Ms. DeLauro, help us keep the ACA.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I enter the powerful words of my constituent, Dominique Thornton, who supports the Affordable Care Act and the protections it provides our most vulnerable citizens. ``Thank you Congresswoman DeLauro for giving us this opportunity to tell you how essential the Affordable Care Act is in our lives and what a difference it has made for us not to be denied insurance coverage because of preexisting conditions. First of all I want to remind everyone that the full name of the law is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. One of the most important protections it affords us is the protection not to be denied health insurance coverage due to preexisting conditions. Why would Members of Congress who represent the people of their districts ever seek to repeal patient protections? I speak today as a mother of an adult daughter who wanted to be here personally to tell her story but could not be and gave me her permission to share her story. I have been an advocate for mental health for the last 10 years because I found out that my daughter suffers from PTSD, chronic anxiety and depression as well as other psychological conditions as a result of sexual assault and physical abuse. One in five women experience sexual assault in this country. One in four has experienced domestic violence. Incredibly being the victim of sexual assault or domestic violence and the resulting psychological disorders are considered preexisting conditions by insurance companies for which they will deny coverage and consequently needed treatment. If a woman is brave enough to report the trauma, she will be denied coverage and treatment for it the next time she changes insurance if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed. If a woman is struggling in the aftermath of trauma and seeks treatment she will be penalized by being denied coverage for the conditions she suffers as a result of trauma the next time she changes policies if the ACA is repealed. Her diagnosis will be a part of her permanent health record which insurance companies will use to determine what they will cover and what preexisting conditions will be denied. Another patient protection that specifically protects women and which will also be eliminated if the ACA is repealed is equal cost for men and women. If the ACA is repealed insurance companies will again be able to charge woman more money for the same coverage as polices sold to men. It is discriminatory that women earn only 80% of what men earn at most but it is worse that they will also be charged higher premiums than men for the same coverage through no fault of their own except the immutable characteristic that they were born female. Women are thus pushed farther and farther into poverty and their only choice is to access the public health system in Medicaid. With State dollars stretched thin and the federal government considering further cuts to Medicaid women's health will be further adversely disproportionately impacted. The wealthy insurance companies who would be required to cover women regardless of preexisting conditions at the same cost will be off the hook and the taxpayers will have to cover the cost of care through our tax dollars. If we the taxpayers are already paying to care for the sick, why don't we have a public option and use the leverage of large numbers. There are 24 million people now covered by the ACA today which can negotiate the cost of health care and prescription drugs down to a more affordable cost. The answers are there to bring the costs of health care down. Will Congress have the courage to stand up for what is right and seek solutions that are fair and equitable for the American people? Do not repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Make changes for the better such as using the buying power of large numbers to reduce costs.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise today to join the many family, friends, and colleagues who have gathered in extending my deepest thanks and appreciation to my good friend, Judy Tabar, as she marks her retirement as President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southern New England. Under her leadership over the last two decades, PPSNE has stood at the forefront of every major effort to expand the organization's role in health care and education. Though she will most certainly be missed, she leaves a strong foundation on which PPSNE can continue to build. Nearly five decades ago, Judy first joined Planned Parenthood as a physician assistant, providing direct patient care. Through her work with patients, she developed a deeper understanding of their needs and how Planned Parenthood could better meet. She soon became Associate Director of Planned Parenthood New England and twenty years ago took on the mantle of President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southern New England. In addition to her work throughout Southern New England, Judy has served in numerous leadership roles within the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), and currently serves on the PPFA Board of Directors. As President and CEO, Judy has oversee PPSNE's eighteen health centers, managed its $30 million annual budget, and guided it through a 42 percent patient increase over the course of her tenure. It has been through Judy's vision and unwavering dedication that PPSNE has expanded its services to include primary care as well as a clinical research program. Under her leadership, PPSNE has focused on reducing teen birth rates and reducing racial and ethnic health disparities by removing barriers to services and information. Today, PPSNE serves nearly 70,000 patients with preventative care making up 90 percent of the services provided. A visionary by any definition, Judy has placed PPSNE on the cutting edge of reproductive health care service expansion. I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to extend a special note of thanks to Judy for her friendship and support over the years. She has been an invaluable resource to both myself and my staff. I am confident that I speak for everyone who has had the opportunity to work with Judy over the years when I say her passion, compassion, tenacity, and commitment will be deeply missed. Planned Parenthood of Southern New England stands as a model for affiliates across the country and that is in large part because of Judy Tabar. She has left an indelible mark on this outstanding organization and a legacy that will continue to inspire others to ensure that everyone has access to the affordable, quality reproductive health care they need and deserve. I am honored to stand today to extend my heartfelt thanks and congratulations to Judy Tabar, for her outstanding leadership and good work, as well as my very best wishes for many more years of health and happiness as she enjoys her retirement.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, twenty-five years ago, in New Haven's Science Park, in an incubator space dedicated to research and development in the biotech industry, Dr. Leonard Bell celebrated the opening of Alexion Pharmaceuticals. From that day forward, Alexion has strived to meet its mission, to develop and deliver life-transforming therapies for patients with devastating and rare diseases. Alexion is one of New Haven and Connecticut's greatest biotech success stories. In less than a decade, the company grew far beyond the incubator space of Science Park, first moving to new facilities in Cheshire, opening a bio-manufacturing facility in Rhode Island and establishing operations in Europe. I am proud to say that just last year we celebrated the return of Alexion's global headquarters to New Haven where they continue their good work in a new state-of-the-art facility that is anchor to an entire downtown revitalization effort. Alexion is special in many ways, but what makes them most unique is their commitment to patients who are all too often invisible to others. Alexion is dedicated to the development of drugs and therapies for some of the most rare diseases in the world, extending hope to patients and families who have nowhere else to turn. Alexion first found success with the development of Soliris, the world's first approved terminal complement inhibitor. Today, Soliris is approved in nearly 50 countries for the treatment of patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) and in more than 40 countries for the treatment of patients with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), two life-threatening, ultra-rare disorders caused by uncontrolled complement activation. In more recent years, Alexion's metabolic franchise has grown to include two highly innovative enzyme replacement therapies for patients with life-threatening and ultra-rare disorders: Strensiq is approved for patients with hypophosphatasia (HPP) and Kanuma is approved for patients with lysosomal acid lipase deficiency. Patients with these life-threatening diseases have no effective treatment options, and they and their families suffer with little hope. Alexion's goal has and continues to be to deliver medical breakthroughs where none currently exist. They are driven because they know people's lives depend on their work. Today, Alexion employs nearly 3,000 people around the world, serving patients in 50 countries. From that small incubator space in Science Park, Alexion has emerged as one of the world's leading rare disease companies, advancing the most robust rare disease pipeline in the biotech industry. I was proud to stand with Dr. Bell as Alexion opened its doors and I am proud to stand today to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Alexion Pharmaceuticals as they celebrate this remarkable milestone. Happy 25th Anniversary and best wishes for continued success.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the Greater New Haven NAACP as they mark their centennial anniversary, a remarkable milestone for this tremendous organization. Over the course of its 100-year history, the Greater New Haven NAACP has been an invaluable resource for our community. Serving fourteen towns, they are constantly working to bring awareness to a variety of issues. From racial disparities in employment, housing, transportation, health, law enforcement and education, their fight for justice has been tireless. They have strived to continually educate, impact and engage our community by sponsoring events like an annual health expo, celebrating the contributions of community members at their annual Freedom Fund dinner and organizing voter registration and turn-out programs. Their efforts have gone a long way toward making sure that all of our community members enjoy equal opportunity. Though inequality and injustice continue to challenge our society, it is organizations like the Greater New Haven NAACP who help us all to meet overcome those challenges. It is through the commitment of their leadership and their members that they are ensuring a promising future for our families, our children, and our communities. I would be remiss if I did not extend a special note of thanks and appreciation to the leadership of the Greater New Haven NAACP for their outstanding vision. It has been a privilege to work with them over my tenure in Congress. As the voice of our African-American community, the Greater New Haven NAACP has improved countless lives. Today, as we mark their 100th Anniversary, we also renew our commitment to those ideals upon which the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was founded, the causes of social justice and equality, the importance of community and public service, and the hope for a better tomorrow. I am honored to stand today to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the Greater New Haven NAACP on their centennial anniversary. As we say in Italian, Cent' Anni to another 100 years.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, which would enable States to discriminate against healthcare providers and deny women access to critical healthcare services. This rule would put the only Federal program exclusively dedicated to family planning and reproductive health services in jeopardy. It reverses the Health and Human Services title X rule prohibiting discrimination against title X healthcare providers. It would have devastating healthcare consequences. In 2015, 88 percent of patients at title X clinics received subsidized or no-charge care, and many of these clinics provide primary health care in addition to family planning services. This could upend public health networks in communities across the country. Supporters of this amendment claim that other health providers can absorb the clients who would lose access to their title X clinics. This is false. Community healthcare centers have said that they do not have the capacity, and they are often not located near these patients. We need to protect these healthcare providers. We need to uphold our responsibility to the American people to provide critical services to those who need them. I cannot and will not support this rule or this resolution. It is detrimental to women's health in this country.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. Drug testing people who are simply applying for unemployment insurance is harassment. I am outraged on behalf of the workers across this country, workers in my congressional district, who could be subjected to insulting and unnecessary testing when they have earned the right to apply for unemployment insurance. This is a strategy to throw up barriers to collecting unemployment insurance. It is an intimidation tactic with no basis in reality. States should not be allowed to impose additional obstacles to cut back on applications. These jobless workers are often unemployed through no fault of their own. Their jobs were taken away by corporations who have moved their jobs overseas in order to get a tax break. And in addition to that, we have a Tax Code today that supports them moving overseas. Or they may have lost their job because of a flawed trade agreement which, as we have seen in the past, has lost jobs and depressed wages. We ought to be dealing with a tax code that penalizes companies that move their jobs overseas, not people who just want to do an honest day's work or collect the unemployment insurance that they are entitled to. People want to work in this country, and it is often tiresome to listen to the ways that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle demean working people, people who struggle every day. We are all identified by the jobs that we have. We take pride in the work that we do. People don't want to be on unemployment. What they want to do is to say to their kids: Be proud of me. This is my job. This is what I do. I want to be your role model.

Ms. DeLAURO. What we ought to do, again, let's penalize those companies that send their jobs overseas. Let's do something about those flawed trade agreements which have lost over 800,000 jobs or more. That is just from the NAFTA agreement. Let's do something else for working people in this country. Or you know what? Perhaps we ought to be drug testing the CEOs of companies who move their mailboxes overseas, export jobs, and who are in the business of hurting American workers. And, by the way, they are getting massive tax breaks at taxpayers' expense. I strongly oppose this rule and this resolution. American workers deserve better.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. What does this rule do? It enables the repeal of protections for American workers. These are regulations that ensure that Federal contractors must disclose labor violations across 14 basic labor laws. Our Federal contractors employ approximately 28 million workers, and while the vast majority of contractors are in compliance, unfortunately, every year American workers are denied their overtime wages, they are discriminated against for their gender, or their age, or had their health and their safety put at risk. Why is this Republican majority working so hard to ensure that billions of taxpayer dollars continue to go to contractors that cheat their workers? This executive order targets those bad actors and the most egregious cases. The intention of the executive order was to encourage compliance with the law and level the playing field for contractors who are playing by the rules. If there are no violations, bidders simply check a box. What should we be doing here in this body? We should be increasing worker protections, not demeaning them or decreasing them. The more than one in five Americans who would be affected should be protected by our labor laws.