Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Lee, for organizing this effort this evening. It isn't just this evening. Every day, 24 hours a day, in her heart of hearts, she knows what her mission is here. That is to make sure that there is a better life for our families and to make sure that there is a better life for our children. It is an honor to work with her on these issues. Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that the strength of a nation starts with the strength of its families. The child tax credit was created in 1997 to help working families afford the expense of raising children. As we all know only too well, the cost of child-rearing goes up every single year. According to the latest figures from the Department of Agriculture, the average two-parent, low-income household will spend more than $218,000 per child up to the age of 18. Middle-income families will spend even more. We in this body have an obligation to do what we can to help households cope with these mounting costs. Today the child tax credit helps improve the lives of some 38 million families. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in 2013, the child tax credit alone lifted 3.1 million people out of poverty, including 1.7 million children. The child tax credit, together with the earned income tax credit, lift more children out of poverty than any other Federal program. Thanks to the 2009 expansion of the credit, a household with two children and one full-time minimum wage earner receives a total credit of about $1,812 per year. That is a real help to families who might otherwise struggle just to make ends meet. Unfortunately, each year, the value of that credit declines with inflation as the cost of raising a child increases each year. In the last big tax deal, Congress made the estate tax cut both permanent and indexed to inflation. The beneficiaries of the estate tax are one-tenth of a percent of the people in this Nation. It strictly benefits the children of the wealthy. I don't want to deny them benefits, but I want us to consider the children in low-income families. Congress should do the same for working families with the child tax credit. We should provide a cost-of-living increase as costs go up for raising children. By the end of this decade, the simple measure would save an estimated 750,000 children from falling back into poverty. Another statistic, my colleague from California, is that there are about 7,450 estates in the United States that benefit from the estate tax. If we indexed--provided a cost of living--for the child tax credit, 19 million children could be lifted out of poverty. Where is our balance? Where is our sense of right and wrong? The value of indexing our anti-poverty programs cannot be understated. Because Social Security benefits are indexed, the rate of seniors in poverty has been relatively stable, at close to 10 percent for the last four decades. Because SNAP benefits--food stamp benefits-- were re-indexed in the 2008 farm bill, families saw the value of their benefits stabilize. The biggest economic challenge facing our country today is that far too many hardworking people are still not earning enough to make ends meet. Middle class wages are stagnant or are in decline. We need to do whatever we can to support working people. No family in our country should have to struggle to raise a child. By indexing the value of the child tax credit--providing the cost of living--and making the expansion permanent, we would help millions of parents afford these costs by giving them a permanent tax break, which helps families and does not lose its value over time. This year, at this time, we should reaffirm our Nation's support for its hardworking families. We should provide them with the same benefit that we provided the children of the 1 percent when we made the estate tax exemption permanent and indexed it to inflation. The fact of the matter is that the families that we are talking about--and these are not my words, but those of Economist Mark Zandi, who was the economist for John McCain. When he was asked what would be most stimulative in our economy, he talked about food stamps because people spend that money. He talked about extending unemployment benefits because people spend that money right away and engage and drive our economy. He also talked about the refundable tax credits, like the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, because people will spend that money and use it to drive our economy. I want to say a thank you to my colleague from California. It is an important discussion. I thank the gentlewoman for organizing it and for always being there to make sure that those of us who serve here do not forget and that we keep our focus where it should be, on the sons and the daughters and the children of working families, of low-income families, and of middle class families.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the people of Ukraine, and to highlight the need for additional aid to address post-traumatic stress among the most vulnerable populations. Today, we mark the 24th anniversary of Ukraine's referendum on the Act of Declaration of Independence. That vote was supported by 92% of Ukraine's citizens, and was a monumental event that made the Soviet era history. Now, in 2015, Ukraine and its people are under threat, and the U.S. must do more to support the people of Ukraine during this critical time. In August, I traveled to Kyiv, which is a magnificent city in a beautiful country. Before my visit, I met with some of the leaders of the Ukrainian community in my district to learn what they had been hearing from friends and relatives in Ukraine and what their concerns were. While in Ukraine, I spoke with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko. I also met the Secretary of the National Security Defense Council Oleksandr Valentynovych as well as several nongovernment organizations and members of civil society. Through these discussions, it became clear to me that we must do more to address the trauma and stress that is caused by the ongoing attacks from Russian-backed separatists in Eastern Ukraine. This year, through USAID, the United States is providing $71 million in aid for economic recovery, humanitarian coordination and logistics, nutrition, sanitation and water, and shelter. This funding has gone to support emergency needs in Ukraine, especially for the protection of refugees, internally displaced persons, and conflict victims. While the United States has been and will continue to be a critical ally to the Ukrainian people, more needs to be done. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre there are an estimated 1.4 million internally displaced persons, most from Eastern Ukraine, and 12.6 percent are children. The long term effect of the violence in Eastern Ukraine, especially on mental health for displaced children, can be devastating. I am proud to be working with researchers from Yale University in my district, as well as nongovernmental organizations on the ground in Ukraine to find ways to support and expand training for mental health professionals in Ukraine. As one Ukrainian doctor who participated in a Yale training session last year put it: ``The effects of this violence, if left untreated, are like landmines that will cause damage in our country for decades to come.'' That is why I am calling upon Congress to support the people of Ukraine, particularly those forced from their communities, with professional mental health training and support services in Ukraine. We must do everything in our power to ensure that the most vulnerable Ukrainians are not forgotten.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, Customs bills in the past have been positive. They have been useful in trade enforcement packages. However, the majority in this body has baked into this legislation harmful provisions that make the fast-track law even worse. It fails to protect Dodd-Frank and financial regulations, consumer safeguards. It stops our trade agreements from doing anything to address immigration. It strips out provisions tackling currency manipulation, an abuse that is costing millions of Americans their jobs. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the Peterson Institute. Listen to what they have to say, no left-leaning organization. It says that, as a result of currency manipulation, the United States has lost up to 5 million jobs. Why would we go down this road again? Why wouldn't we make currency manipulation prohibitive, instead of using language that is not even in the bill, but in a forum that they have put together around the TPP that says that countries should refrain from currency manipulation, they should avoid currency manipulation? Avoid? Refrain? What kind of tough enforcement language is that? It is not. What do countries do when they manipulate their currency? They drop the cost of their currency. Their goods become cheaper. Our goods are more expensive. We don't sell them abroad. You know what happened in Mexico with NAFTA. They talked about all the beautiful provisions, all the tariffs dropping, et cetera. When they devalued the peso, it was all gone. This is without strong, tough--and it won't be strong and tough because of the Senate language. But this is a good faith effort to deal with currency. But, in fact, the lack of currency enforcement here is going to cause ruination in terms of American jobs and it is going to lower their wages. And already Malaysia has devalued its currency, as has Vietnam. This agreement bans the United States from making commitments on climate change in trade agreements. My colleagues have spoken about this, provisions that are necessary to ensure that our trade policy does not negate our climate goals. You have got--what is it?--I don't know--200 countries assembled in Paris to look at how we bring some sanity to climate control and what we do. We have the President there. These efforts are more important now than ever, and we will be able to do nothing about dealing with the issue of climate. This is a massive step backward for the already weak environmental obligation in our trade agreements. This bill contains no funding support for the enforcement and monitoring of our trade agreements. Lack of enforcement has plagued our trade deals for decades. Despite environmental rules in the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement, the overwhelming majority of timber from Peru is illegally logged. Despite the labor rules in the Colombia free trade agreement, over 118 Colombian trade unionists have been murdered.

Ms. DeLAURO. Within the last week, Vietnam, one of the partners in this agreement, arrested labor activists. 118 Colombian trade unionists were murdered. Vietnam will not allow organized labor, and in the agreement they get a free pass for 5 years while our jobs are just being drained away. Now the Congress is reviewing the TPP, the largest free trade agreement of its kind in history. It does include countries like Vietnam and Malaysia, where labor and human rights abuses are rampant. My colleagues have talked about Malaysia and trafficking and forced labor. Where are the values of this Nation when we can take Malaysia that traffics in young girls and say that they have gotten better and they go from a tier 3 country to a tier 2 country just so that they can be part of this agreement? Where are the values of the United States of America? They are not present here. We can't afford more free trade agreements without adequate enforcement. Worst of all, this bill weakens protection in so many areas. We are dealing, as I said, in trafficking. It is modern slavery. That is what that is all about. Democrats have been clamoring for years and years for our government to include enforceable labor standards and enforceable environmental provisions, and it has fallen on deaf ears. This motion to instruct--and I say to my colleague thank you for doing this--should pass. It will pass tonight or tomorrow, but it really should not go to conference. There are so many flaws in the underlying bill and in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement as well, and this should not go to conference. In fact, put a gloss on a piece of legislation that is one of the worst pieces of legislation that has hit this floor of the United States House of Representatives.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question. Defeating the previous question will allow us to amend the rule to provide for consideration of the Healthy Families Act. It is an act that would allow workers to earn up to 7 days of job-protected sick leave every year. Being a working parent should not mean choosing between your job and taking care of yourself and your family. But at least 43 million private sector workers, 39 percent of the workforce, must make this decision every time illness strikes. Millions more cannot earn paid sick time to care for a sick child or for a family member. Employers ultimately suffer when workers have to make this choice. Increased turnover rates amount to greater costs. And employers can jeopardize the health of other employees when their policies force employees to come to work sick. Paid sick days policies have been enacted successfully at the State and local levels. Nearly 20 jurisdictions across the country have adopted paid sick day laws, and there is strong public support for universal access to paid sick days. Eighty-eight percent of Americans support paid sick days legislation. The Healthy Families Act allows working families to meet their health and financial needs while boosting businesses' productivity and retention rates. It ultimately strengthens this Nation's economy. It is common sense, business savvy, and it is the right thing to do. Let's protect the public health, boost the economy, help hardworking families have access to paid sick days. Let's pass the Healthy Families Act. I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question. Defeating the previous question will allow us to amend the rule to provide for consideration of the Healthy Families Act. What is the Healthy Families Act? It is an act that would allow workers to earn up to 7 days of job-protected sick leave each year. Mr. Speaker, being a working parent should not mean choosing between your job and taking care of yourself and your family. But at least 43 million private sector workers--39 percent of our workforce--must make this decision every time illness strikes. Millions more cannot earn paid sick time to care for a sick child or for a family member. Employers ultimately suffer when workers have to make this choice. Increased turnover rates amount to greater costs, and employers can jeopardize the health of other employees when their policies force employees to come to work sick. With regard to families, I listen to people--as we all do in our communities--all of the time. I can talk to you about Eva, the bus driver who picks up kids in the morning on their way to school. They are there with their parents, and she says that I see parents with tears in their eyes as they are putting their child on the bus, knowing that their child is sick, but they can't afford to stay home with that child because they could lose their job. They could get pay docked. They are making a choice, and that is not how they view themselves as a parent. Paid sick day policies have been enacted successfully at the State and at the local levels. Nearly 20 jurisdictions across the country have adopted paid sick days, and there is strong public support for universal access to paid sick days. Eighty-eight percent of Americans support paid sick day legislation. The Healthy Families Act allows working families to meet their health and their financial needs while boosting businesses' productivity and retention rates--strengthening our Nation's economy. It is common sense. It is business savvy. This is the right thing to do. Today there isn't a parent staying home with their children. Mothers, fathers, grandmothers, aunts, and uncles, everyone is in the workplace. Let our public policy reflect the way that families are trying to make it today. We need to work to protect public health, to boost the economy, and to help hardworking families have access to paid sick days. Let's pass the Healthy Families Act, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is deja vu all over again. This bill represents the majority's 61st attempt to weaken, undermine, or repeal the Affordable Care Act, legislation that, yes, has brought health care to millions of Americans and significantly reduced prescription drug costs for seniors. The bill is also the latest installment of the majority's crusade against women's health. It targets Planned Parenthood again, an organization that provides millions of low-income Americans with lifesaving services many families cannot get anywhere else. Finally, it threatens to cut nearly $13 billion from efforts to protect people against deadly diseases: measles, listeria, Ebola. Why are we wasting time on ideological attacks such as this? There are so many real issues to deal with. Wages are stagnant. Families are struggling to make ends meet. Stop playing games. Return to serving the American people. You should start by voting against this disgraceful bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of our Nation's flagship program for young children: Head Start. October is National Head Start Awareness Month, and 2015 marks 50 years since the program's founding. President Lyndon Johnson said Head Start would open up ``a new war front on poverty . . . to make certain that poverty's children would not be forevermore poverty's captives.'' I have the honor of counting the father of Head Start, Edward Zigler, among my constituents. When Professor Zigler recently went for surgery at the Yale-New Haven Hospital, he discovered that his anesthetist, Dr. John Paul Kim, was a Head Start alumnus. Dr. Kim credited his success in life directly to Head Start, and he is not alone. Research proves that Head Start graduates are less likely to be held back a grade or to get into trouble with the law and are more likely to go on to college and professional careers. But our work is not yet done. Head Start currently only has the resources to reach 4 in 10 eligible students. If we are serious about helping children thrive, we must meet this demand.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article: [From National Catholic Reporter, Oct. 19, 2015] Fewer Guns, Fewer Gun-related Deaths (By Vinnie Rotondaro) Fewer guns, fewer gun-related deaths. A simple enough concept, so knock-you-over-the-head obvious that it practically begs for an equally blunt--if totally oblivious--response, one made by plenty of pro-gun rights advocates: more guns make us safer. But a look at the social science literature surrounding the U.S. gun violence debate shows how painfully real the gun prevalence-gun death correlation is, and suggests that it could prove very difficult to dig the country out of the hole it finds itself in. In America today, more than 310 million firearms are estimated to be in the hands of private citizens. That is roughly 97 guns for every 100 people. Studies regularly show that where there are more guns, there is more homicide. Jeffrey Swanson, a Duke University psychiatry and behavioral sciences professor, and a leading expert on U.S. gun violence, believes that the more we look into the question of gun access and prevalence in society, the less myths surrounding the gun control debate will hold sway. Some gun rights activists argue that more armed citizens will make for less crime, but ``we don't have an exceptionally high crime problem in the United States, or an exceptionally high violent crime problem compared to other industrialized countries,'' Swanson said. Conversely, ``we do have an exceptionally high firearm homicide problem.'' Others react to mass shootings where the gunmen are seriously mentally ill, and say that we need to fix the country's broken mental healthcare system. But doing so would not solve our gun violence problem, Swanson said. ``Mass shooters are really atypical,'' he explained. ``They are atypical of people with serious mental illnesses, the vast majority of whom are never going to be violent. And they are also atypical of the perpetrators of gun violence. Most of them don't have serious mental illness.'' Swanson's research points to a far more mundane explanation for the more than 11,000 firearm homicides that occur in the U.S. annually, the majority of which are the result of arguments, often involving alcohol, often occurring in underprivileged areas, or in troubled domestic settings. America has an anger problem, and far too many angry Americans have easy access to guns. According to a study that he and other researchers published in Journal of Behavioral Sciences and the Law earlier this year, nearly nine percent of the U.S. population has a serious anger problem and access to guns at home. The study culled data from a National Institute of Mental Health funded survey estimating the prevalence of different kinds of mental disorders across the U.S. ``Anger is a normal human emotion,'' Swanson said. ``Everybody gets angry. But these are people who, when they get angry, break and smash things, and get into physical fights. . . . People who have a really short fuse,'' and who can at times be ``uncontrollable and destructive.'' They are wound-up, loose cannons, but not seriously mentally ill--the kind of people who should not have access to guns, but too often do. According to Swanson's research, about 1.5 percent of the population ``have this impulsive, angry behavior and are carrying a gun around with them out in public.'' The finger pulls the trigger? Other social science research sheds additional light on the toxic quality of guns in society. Studies show that higher exposure to guns leads to more suicide--the leading cause of gun death in the U.S. One nationwide study found that people who committed suicide were 17 times more likely to have lived in homes with guns compared to people who did not. Exposure to guns also leads to increased aggression. In 1967, researchers from the University of Wisconsin demonstrated the reality of a disturbing psychological phenomenon called the ``weapons effect.'' The researchers sat one group of participants at a table with a shotgun and a revolver laying on it. Another group of participants were seated at a table with badminton racquets and shuttlecocks. The participants were then ``angered'' by an experimenter, told to ignore the objects on the table, and given the opportunity to administer a retaliatory electric shock to the level of their liking. Those seated at the table with guns opted for more aggressive shocks. ``Guns not only permit violence, they can stimulate it as well,'' wrote researcher Leonard Berkowitz at the time, explaining the phenomenon. ``The finger pulls the trigger, but the trigger may also be pulling the finger'' Today, the ``weapons effect'' has been replicated inside and outside of laboratory settings in dozens of studies. Brad Bushman, a professor of communication and psychology at Ohio State University who studies human aggression and serves on President Barack Obama's committee on gun violence, performed a 2013 meta-analysis of over 50 ``weapons effect'' studies involving over 5000 participants. ``The mere presence of a weapon can increase aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, hostile appraisals, aggressive behavior,'' he said, ``just seeing one, just the object itself'' ``Weapons effect'' studies tend to focus on guns. One field study found that people stuck behind a pickup truck at a green light were quicker to honk their horn if a rifle was visibly mounted to the rear window, Bushman said. Another study showed that people with guns in their car were more likely to drive aggressively than people without guns in their car. A 2006 study published in Psychological Science, the flagship journal of the Association for Psychological Science, found that exposure to guns led to ``significantly greater increases in testosterone'' in men. ``I think this is really an important component missing in the [gun control] debate,'' Bushman said. ``Just merely seeing a gun can make people more aggressive.'' ``Recent research shows that humans are as fast to notice guns as they are to notice spiders and snakes,'' he said, and ``what this illustrates is the fact that in the human brain, there is a very strong link between guns and danger, guns and violence, guns and aggression.'' L. Rowell Huesmann, director of the Research Center for Group Dynamics and head of the Aggression Research Program in the Center at the University of Michigan, agrees. ``The research is compelling that just the sight of a gun increases the risk of violent behavior by the people who see it,'' he wrote in an email. ``If they have a gun available they will be more likely to use it, but, even if they don't have a gun available, they will be more likely to behave violently in some other way.'' Slippery solutions Vincent DeMarco, national coordinator of Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence, believes that ``the fundamental problem as to why we don't have more gun violence prevention is that people don't know that there is something out there that works.'' ``The problem is not knowing that gun violence is terrible,'' he said, ``everybody knows that. And the gun violence prevention movement has spent too much time focusing on and emphasizing that.'' DeMarco advocates for stronger handgun purchaser licensing requirements. A webpage titled ``A Tale of Two States'' and put out by Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence illustrates his thinking. ``In 2007, Missouri repealed its purchaser licensing and background check requirement, resulting in a 25% increase in firearm homicides and an overall 14% increase in murders over the subsequent five years,'' it reads. ``The rise in gun deaths is directly attributable to the repeal of the licensing and background check requirement as the firearm homicide rate during the same period did not increase in adjoining states nor did the national average rise.'' By comparison, ``Connecticut . . . continues to benefit from its handgun purchaser licensing law passed in 1994. A new study estimates that the law led to a 40% decline in homicides committed with a firearm during the 10 years following the implementation of the licensing requirement.'' Swanson believes these studies offer a powerful argument for the effectiveness of background check laws in reducing firearm homicides. He would like to see more background checks take into consideration the potential for anger issues in individuals seeking a gun. But in a country as saturated with guns as America already is, merely stopping more guns from getting out into society may not be enough, he cautioned. ``If you have a bunch of laws that are focused on making sure risky people can't buy a gun,'' he said, ``but meanwhile we've got 97 guns per 100 people, that doesn't mean that somebody needs to go buy a gun to commit suicide, or hurt someone else.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with my heartfelt congratulations that I rise today to recognize the Jeffrey Modell Foundation on the dedication of its newest Diagnostic and Research Center here in Washington, DC. Home to diagnostic and clinical care as well as an additional research facility, this new center will undoubtedly be a beacon of hope for families with children suffering from Primary Immunodeficiency both here in the metro-Washington area and across the country. In 1986, Vicki and Fred Modell lost their only son, Jeffrey, to Primary Immunodeficiency, a genetic disorder that leaves the body unable to fight off infections. Not long after their son passed away, the Modell's created the Jeffrey Modell Foundation--not to commemorate Jeffrey's death, but rather to celebrate his life by giving life to others who suffer from the same illness. Today, the Foundation is a global organization devoted to early and precise diagnosis, meaningful treatments, and research toward a cure. A thriving force in the field, it achieves its aims through basic and clinical research, physician education, patient support, advocacy, public awareness, and newborn screenings. The Jeffrey Modell Centers Network now includes 600 expert physicians and 250 research, diagnostic, and referral centers. It has a presence in 206 cities, in 80 countries, on six continents. On Tuesday, September 29th, Vicki and Fred came to Washington, DC to celebrate the dedication of the newest Jeffrey Modell Diagnostic and Research Center for Primary Immunodeficiency at Children's National Medical Center. This world-class facility will help sick children and their parents deal with the trauma of serious illness. Under the leadership of Dr. Michael Keller, this new Center will be a national center of excellence in patient diagnosis, clinical care, and research. This great step forward for children suffering from serious illness throughout the Washington region came about because of the dedication, commitment and support shown by Vicki and Fred Modell and the Jeffrey Modell Foundation. I could not be more proud to congratulate and thank both the Jeffrey Modell Foundation and Children's National Hospital for all that they do to save so many precious lives.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed rollcall vote No. 545 regarding ``Amash of Michigan Part B Amendment No. 1'' (H.R. 702). Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I missed rollcall vote No. 546 regarding ``Messer of Indiana Part B Amendment No. 5'' (H.R. 702). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I missed rollcall vote No. 547 regarding ``Messer of Indiana Part B Amendment No. 6'' (H.R. 702). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I missed rollcall vote No. 548 regarding ``On Motion to Recommit with Instructions'' (H.R. 702). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I missed rollcall vote No. 549 regarding ``On Passage'' (H.R. 702). Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Personal Explanation

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to my colleague and what an honor for me to join with you and to thank you for your steadfast efforts in fighting for working families, for the American workers, men and women, and not being afraid to stand up and say no to what would be injustice for our American workers and their families. Mr. Speaker, it has been 4 days since the Trans-Pacific Partnership was announced. We have not yet been shown the text, but we have heard a chorus of spin about the supposed benefits of this secret agreement. After more than 5 years of talks, the parties have announced a deal without having released a single word to the public. The negotiations took place under unprecedented secrecy. Corporate special interests had a place at the table. Congress and American families were locked out. The American people and their elected representatives in Congress are forced to rely on leaks to find out what is in this agreement. But the truth is that, on vital issues like workers' rights, environment, and human rights, the standards are only valuable if they are enforced. If experience is any guide, we will do little to enforce those provisions. I remember in 2007 when my Democratic colleagues in this Chamber forced the Bush administration to renegotiate a number of trade agreements to include enhanced labor standards. In the 8 years since, neither the current administration nor its predecessor has taken meaningful action to enforce those provisions. So dozens of Colombian union organizers are being murdered despite labor provision in the U.S. Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Thousands of acres of Peruvian forests are being destroyed despite the environmental provisions in the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement. Why would we assume that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be any different when it comes to Brunei's persecution of LGBT people, Malaysia's human trafficking and forced labor, or Vietnam's abundant use of child labor? In fact, the administration has already shown us how little regard it pays to these issues by upgrading Malaysia's classification on human trafficking in order to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. Past experience tells us what to expect in other areas as well. The last big trade deal, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, cost this country 75,000 jobs in just 3 years, according to the Economic Policy Institute. The TPP will be even worse. Not only is it far bigger, it will throw Americans into competition with Vietnamese workers who make less than 65 cents per hour. These provisions will offshore jobs, lower our wages, and increase income inequality. Americans workers have seen this happen to them year after year after year. To compound these problems, it has been reported that the TPP will remove support from green jobs and American industry by outlawing buy American and buy local standards in government procurement contracts and potentially opening the door for Chinese state-owned enterprises to take those contracts. In common with every previous trade agreement, the TPP does nothing to curb currency manipulation, which basically allows countries to keep their goods and the price of their goods at artificially low prices. That means, if they lower their prices and their currency, ours are more expensive. This abuse, not in my words, but in the words of economists C. Fred Bergsten at the Peterson Institute, Jared Bernstein at the Center for American Progress--they believe that currency manipulation and its practice by China, by Singapore, and Vietnam, who are all part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement--that currency manipulation has led to the loss of almost 5 million jobs in the United States of America. One of the biggest historical manipulators, as I said, Japan, is a member of the TPP. The administration has even floated the idea of adding China, probably the worst currency manipulator in history. China's recent devaluation just a few short weeks ago of the yuan cost up to 640,000 American jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute. And after the administration decided to take no action against China, TPP partner Vietnam followed suit, and they devalued their own currency. In other words, with this agreement, we are rewarding the cheats. No currency forum, as the administration has talked about, because currency and enforceable currency regulations are not in the legislation. But they say there is going to be a forum, that we will have the opportunity to discuss this. Well, you can have a lot of forums, but unless you have an enforcement mechanism to say no, it is not going to be fixed. It has to be fixed in the agreement, and it is not. So the forum is meaningless. The predictable calamities do not end there. Earlier this year, WTO trade agreements led to the dismantling of American food labeling laws, country of origin labeling, so that the American public will know where their food is coming from. Again, the TPP goes even further by allowing multi-national corporations, as well as foreign governments, to challenge U.S. law. It will not be long before we start to see challenges to our food safety system, a system already strained to the breaking point by a flood of tainted contaminated seafood from the TPP countries like Malaysia and Vietnam. Finally, we know that the TPP will establish rules that give Big Pharma different monopoly periods across partner nations. That makes no sense in a free trade agreement. Why would you do this? That is only to keep drug prices high. One commonly used combination of HIV drugs cost $10,000 per year when bought from a Big Pharma monopolist, from the big pharmaceutical company, but as a generic, it only costs $250. What this agreement will do is to delay generics coming to the market. And by locking in these corporate monopolies, the agreement compromises our access to medicines for the people who need it the most: your constituents, my colleague, and mine, and all of our colleagues. President Obama said on Monday that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement ``reflects American values.'' But the administration's approach has been the opposite. It has put corporate special interests before the interests of the American people instead of learning from past experience. We are being railroaded into yet another trade agreement that risks our jobs, our wages, and the health of our family. But, under the law, there is still time for Congress to reject the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, and that is what we need to do in a bipartisan way. There are people on both sides of the aisle in this institution that oppose this agreement. We need to come together and we need to come together for the sake of the working men and women that we represent all over this country. That is what our job is to do right now. We have a moral responsibility. We have an obligation to the people who elect us and send us here to represent their best interests. Everything that we know from past agreements and what limited amount of information we know from this agreement will put the economic security at risk for American families. I want to say to my colleague, thank you for doing this. We need over the next several weeks to be doing this every single day because the word has got to go out to the American public of just what is at stake in this trade agreement, and they will be calling their representative and telling them to vote ``no.'' Thank you very, very much for the opportunity to participate tonight.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. It is beneath the dignity of this Chamber to participate in an ideological witch hunt, especially one based on entirely false allegations. The chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee spent hours last week cross-examining Planned Parenthood's president about these claims, and even he has publicly admitted that they have no merit. So let us call this proposed committee what it really is, the select committee to attack women's health. The majority wants to kill Planned Parenthood. If they succeed, many low-income women will have nowhere left to go for breast cancer exams, Pap smears, and a range of other lifesaving services. So this resolution tells these women flat out: We do not care about your health care. We do not care if you die. The hypocrisy of the majority is breathtaking. One minute they condemn all government spending--even on health care for some of our poorest families--and now they plan to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars on a politically motivated witch hunt. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this disgraceful resolution.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to join the communities of the Lower Naugatuck Valley in extending my sincere congratulations to TEAM, Inc. as they celebrate their 50th Anniversary--a special milestone for this outstanding organization. Guided by the mission to connect individuals and families with solutions that lead to well-being, self-sufficiency and full participation in the community, over the course of the last five decades TEAM, Inc. has diligently worked to provide programs and services to those most in need. From Meals on Wheels for seniors to Head Start programs for children, from energy assistance to eviction prevention and security deposit assistance, and from financial education workshops and employment services to their annual holiday toy drive, as the needs of those they serve have changed, TEAM Inc. has expanded their work to provide their clients with skills and resources they need to succeed and thrive. TEAM, Inc. works with individuals and families in times of crisis and stressful life changes. People of all ages turn to them for help with things ranging from basic needs and relief during a crisis to support in making long term changes in their lives. I want to extend a special note of thanks to all of the staff and administration of TEAM, Inc. whose hard work and contributions have strengthened the organization and advanced their mission. It takes a special combination of compassion and dedication to provide the myriad of programs and services at TEAM, Inc. The staff and administrators possess those unique qualities and through their efforts make a real difference in the lives of others. I have had many opportunities to work with TEAM, Inc. and always find myself in awe of the scope of work they undertake every day. In their 50-year history, TEAM, Inc. has touched the lives of thousands, bringing the most precious of gifts--that of hope. There is no greater gift that we can provide to our fellow citizens. I am proud to stand today and extend my heartfelt congratulations to everyone at TEAM, Inc. on this very special occasion and wish them all the best for many more years of success.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with the heaviest of hearts that I rise today to pay tribute to one of Connecticut's and this nation's most successful entrepreneurs and my dear friend, Fred DeLuca, who recently lost his battle with leukemia. Born in Brooklyn in 1947 to Salvatore and Carmela Ombres DeLuca, Fred watched his father, a factory worker, work tirelessly to provide for his family. The family later moved to Bridgeport, Connecticut where Fred graduated from Central High School in 1965. Hoping to pursue a career in medicine, Fred enrolled at the University of Bridgeport. Though working at a local hardware store, his wages would not cover all of his college expenses. Fred knew he had to do something more and that's when he decided to open a sandwich shop and use his earnings to pay his college expenses. So, with a loan from a family friend, he rented a small store for $165 a month in downtown Bridgeport, built a takeout counter and opened his first sandwich shop on August 28, 1965. He called it Pete's Submarines in honor of his backer, but on their radio advertisements listeners misheard the name as Pizza Marines, so he changed it to Pete's Subway before settling on the simpler Subway in 1968. Though the first two shops were not a great success, the third, which opened in a better location, changed their fortunes forever. As the growing operation gained traction, Fred received a degree in psychology but gave up plans for a medical career. The business was incorporated and in 1974, halfway to the goal of owning 32 stores in the company's first decade, the partners adopted franchises as the key to growth--and it worked. In 1978 Subway opened its 100th outlet and in 1987 its 1,000th. Since then, it has averaged 1,500 new restaurants a year, and in recent years it surpassed all competitors, establishing restaurants not only across America but throughout Europe, Asia, and Oceania. Fred was a reflection of what we all define as the American Dream. What began as a small business to pay his way through college became one of our nation's most beloved fast food chains. Fred never forgot from where it was he started. Whether through scholarships to help young students realize their dreams, grants to local non-profit organizations, or sharing his experiences and inspiring a new generation of young entrepreneurs, Fred gave back to his community and fellow man in so many ways. Fred DeLuca was many things--a brilliant entrepreneur, a savvy businessman, a generous philanthropist. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to know and work with him and I consider myself fortunate to call him my friend. I extend my deepest sympathies to Fred's wife, Elisabeth and his son, Jonathan, as well as his many family and friends. He will be deeply missed and leaves a legacy that is certain to inspire many.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to join the New Haven community in extending my heartfelt congratulations to the Gesell Institute of Child Development as they celebrate their 65th Anniversary--a remarkable milestone for this wonderful organization! Dr. Arnold Gesell, a professor at Yale University at the turn of the 20th Century, was a pioneer in the study of early childhood development. Founder of what today is the nationally renowned Yale Child Study Center, he dedicated his life to studying the verbal, motor, social, emotional and cognitive growth of children. Perhaps best known for his use of the cinematographic technologies that were revolutionary for his time to document the developmental stages of 10,000 children, Dr. Gesell's legacy is the extensive archive he created throughout his life-long research that would later enable parents and teachers to better understand children's ages and stages of development. Dr. Gesell was both a researcher and an educator, training physicians, nurses, and research scholars alike. In 1950 two of his former students and colleagues, Drs. Frances Ilg and Louise Bates Ames, along with Janet Learned, purchased two properties on Prospect Street in New Haven and opened a research institute and nursery school aimed at exploring child development through adolescence. Named in honor of their mentor and respected colleague, the Gesell Institute for Child Development was officially incorporated in March of 1950. In fact, Dr. Gesell served as a research consultant at the Institute until his death in 1961. Over the course of its sixty-five year history, the Gesell Institute has made several invaluable contributions to the field of child development. The Nursery School served as both a training ground for early childhood educators and pediatricians, as well as a basis for some of the earliest research and investigation into school readiness. Perhaps the most enduring of its contributions to the field is the development of Gesell Developmental Observation (GDO)--a comprehensive multidimensional assessment system that assists educators, and other professionals in understanding characteristics of child behavior in relation to typical growth patterns. One of Dr. Ilg's most important legacies was the formation of the National Lecture Staff, a nation-wide network of educators that, today, work together to provide a comprehensive program for staff professional development, in-service trainings, and workshops across the country on how to administer the newly updated Gesell Developmental Observation-Revised. Sixty-five years later, the Gesell Institute continues to be one of the most respected institutions for child development in the nation. Serving as a resource for educators, parents and others as well as an advocate for our young people, it is an extraordinary organization whose work has touched countless lives and helped to shape how we look at childhood development. I am honored to have this opportunity to extend my sincere congratulations to everyone at the Gesell Institute as they mark this very special occasion.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join the New Haven community in extending my heartfelt congratulations to President Julia McNamara and the entire Albertus Magnus family as they mark the 90th Anniversary of Albertus Magnus College. What a remarkable milestone for this outstanding institution of learning! In 1924, the Dominican Sisters of Saint Mary of the Springs, who are now known as the Dominican Sisters of Peace, purchased an estate in New Haven, Connecticut, in an effort to found a women's college. A charter was signed on July 13, 1925 and the first classes were held on September 24th of that year. Named for St. Albert the Great--Albertus Magnus--the 13th century bishop, theologian and scholar described by a contemporary as a man ``so superior in every science that he can fittingly be called the wonder and miracle of our time,'' it was the first Catholic, liberal arts, residential college for women in New England and remained such for its first 60 years. Julia McNamara, the current President of Albertus, having served in that role since 1982, has guided the College through a myriad of transitions which have expanded the institution in countless ways. Albertus became coeducational in 1985 and today boasts an enrollment of 1,550 students. Albertus offers its students a wide-range of programs and services. They currently have 550 students enrolled in the traditional undergraduate program; 720 in accelerated undergraduate programs for working adults; and 280 in graduate degree programs, including the only Master of Arts in Art Therapy degree in the state of Connecticut. At this past spring's commencement ceremony Albertus Magnus College conferred 537 degrees. Ahead of its time, in the 1970's Albertus Magnus recognized the need for continuing education for working adults. They created a program called ``Begin Again'' for women who had started college but never completed a degree. In 1985 ``Begin Again'' became the inspiration for a broader, accelerated evening program serving working adults; evening programs expanded again in 1994 with the addition of business-focused offerings. In 1992 Albertus offered its first graduate degree program: the Master of Arts in Liberal Studies; today there are 10 graduate programs, ranging from accounting to human services and criminal justice, from leadership to writing and education. The College has awarded 2,848 master's degrees. Albertus is also dedicated to assisting our community's veterans in their pursuit of higher education. A participant in the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill Yellow Ribbon Program, Albertus works closely with veterans to help them succeed in accelerated programs. There are Veterans Centers on the New Haven and East Hartford campuses and the Albertus Student Veterans Association is an approved chapter of Student Veterans of America. Among its 14,255 alumni, Albertus Magnus can claim the first woman named to the Federal bench in Connecticut; the first woman appointed to the trial court in Connecticut; an eight-term member of the United States House of Representatives, a Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services and a United States Ambassador to Ireland; the first woman vice president at Merrill Lynch; and a pioneering pediatric cardiologist whose research has saved countless young lives. On a personal note, I have fond memories of the year I spent teaching International Politics at Albertus--it was a learning experience for me as well as the students! Over the course of the last 90 years, Albertus Magnus College has helped thousands of students realize their dreams through higher education. By providing both traditional and non-traditional programs and services, Albertus has opened the doors of opportunity to their students and enabled them to pursue their career goals. I am honored to have this opportunity to stand to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Albertus Magnus College, President Julia McNamara, students, alumnae, faculty and staff as they mark this very special occasion. Happy 90th Anniversary and best wishes for many more years of success!

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in this bill. We are faced with this continuing resolution in order to avert a government shutdown. This is no way to govern. America deserves better than a month-to-month government, forever on the brink of a shutdown and held back by needless budget constraints. Those who call this a clean continuing resolution are mistaken. In fact, it puts in place yet more indiscriminate cuts. It cuts .2 percent across the board for most discretionary programs. Apparently, we have not learned our lesson about mindless austerity. Instead of fighting over women's health care, we should use the next month to negotiate a budget agreement that addresses the single biggest economic issue that we face in this country. Today working men and women in the United States are in jobs that don't pay them enough money. Real wages have been stagnant for 30 years. We need to stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars every year on tax loopholes for the wealthy and for big corporations. We need to invest once more in education and job training and health and all the other priorities that American families hold dear. Right now we cannot meet their needs. Poor children are struggling. Their vocabularies are, on average, one-third those of their middle income peers. But since 2010, we have cut over $1 billion in real terms from education. Workers need help learning the right skills, finding work in a tough economy, so that they can support their families, but we have cut more than $1 billion from job training programs. Millions of Americans depend upon lifesaving medical research to cure disease and to improve the quality of life. I stand here as a survivor of ovarian cancer. I am here because of the grace of God and biomedical research. Yet, we will continue to cut biomedical research. We have cut more than $3.5 billion from the National Institutes of Health. The list of failures goes on and on. We are failing our workers. We are failing working families. We are failing students and medical researchers and first responders and veterans and families and millions of others. Our job in this body is to provide opportunity for people. During this economic struggle that we have, we ought to be focused like a laser on the issues that work to better the economic situation of working families in this country. What we do here is to continue to hold a cap on what we need to move forward, and, more importantly than that, what we do from the other side of the aisle is to threaten the government shutdown over the issue of women's health. Who are we? What are we about? Where are the great values of this Nation that helped to provide an opportunity so that families could join the middle class of this country and continue to make it strong? That is what our job is today to do, not to be involved in these mindless exercises that the other side of the aisle continues to move forward on.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. This ``enrollment correction'' is yet another procedural maneuver. It is designed to destroy health care for millions of American women. It is unacceptable, and we will not stand for it. The disgraceful rightwing assault on reproductive freedom has become an all-out war on the health and the well-being of millions of low- income American women. Each year, Planned Parenthood provides 2.7 million people, men and women, with lifesaving services. I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would open their hearts--open their hearts--to healthcare services for women who don't have the wherewithal to go to the same kinds of private doctors that the men and women of the United States House of Representatives have the opportunity to do. Open your hearts, because for many, Planned Parenthood is their only way of receiving these healthcare services. The president of the American Congress of OB-GYNs has warned that, without Planned Parenthood, many patients will be left without a doctor; and that is what these attacks are designed to achieve. The rightwing does not want poor women to have health care, period. It is spiteful, it is cruel, and it is wrong. We know what happens when funding is taken away from Planned Parenthood. In Scott County, Indiana, a full-scale HIV epidemic was triggered that has been declared a public healthcare emergency. Do we want more people to die? Are we really prepared to see that picture repeated across the country? The American people have made it clear that they will not accept any bill that cuts funding for women's health care or compromises reproductive freedoms. Let us in this body respect and trust the healthcare decisions that women make.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself an additional 10 seconds. Let's respect and trust the healthcare decisions that women make. We must respect their wishes. I urge my colleagues to vote against this disgraceful bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), someone who has spent her entire career working at issues that help working families with their health care, and particularly women.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams)

Ms. DeLAURO. I would inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).