Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the International Day to End Obstetric Fistula. Obstetric fistula, a debilitating condition, has left hundreds of thousands of women suffering in solitude and shame. It is perhaps one of the most telling examples of inequitable access to maternal health care and, until recently, one of the most hidden. Addressing this issue is not only a moral imperative for the United States, but it is also in our best strategic interest. When women are pushed out of society, they cannot contribute. By treating and preventing this condition, we empower women to care for themselves and their families, and be active participants in society, reducing global poverty. Dr. Babatunde Osotimehin, United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, recently said, ``Let us decide, as a global community, that the world we want is one where fistula no longer exists. Let us, once and for all, put an end to this assault on women's and girls' health and human rights, which steals from them their very dignity and destroys the most fundamental of human qualities: hope. Much of the world has already virtually eliminated fistula. It is time to finish the job. Let us all work together to wipe fistula off the map.'' The International Day to End Obstetric Fistula is an important opportunity to raise awareness of a condition that is not well- understood, even in societies where it is prevalent. I urge everyone to use the day of recognition to help raise awareness and intensify actions towards ending obstetric fistula.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to join the community of Guilford, Connecticut, as well as the Fradiani family, friends, and fans of all ages in extending my heartfelt congratulations to Connecticut's own Nick Fradiani, Jr. who this week became a finalist on Season XIV of the reality television series American Idol. With his musician father, Nick Fradiani, Sr., bringing him to gigs as a child and blessed with a special talent all his own it is not hard to believe that Nick developed a passion for music. Though he has really only focused on music as a career over the last decade, it is that passion that makes Nick's performances so special and why he has been able to build such a strong fan base in Connecticut. A performer, singer, and songwriter, he has taken American Idol Season XIV by storm and, in the process, has sparked a unique enthusiasm across his home state of Connecticut. Bringing his own style to fan favorites like Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers' ``American Girl,'' Billy Joel's ``Only the Good Die Young,'' Maroon 5's ``Harder To Breathe,'' Rod Stewart's ``Maggie May,'' Matchbox Twenty's ``Bright Lights,'' and Rascall Flatts ``What Hurts the Most'' he has impressed American Idol judges and, more importantly, won the hearts and minds of millions across the country who have voted to ensure his continued appearances. Nick has created quite the fervor in Connecticut--reflected in the thousands of fans across the state who crowd into viewing parties or watch from each week to see him perform and vote for him to advance. I am honored to have this opportunity to join his parents Nick and Liz, along with his sister, Kristen, his extended family, friends and the Guilford community in wishing Nick Fradiani, Jr. the best of luck in the last weeks of the American Idol competition. Nick--win or lose you have made us all proud and we are with you.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health care.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I join the University of New Haven's (UNH) Board of Governors and its President, Dr. Steven Kaplan, in recognizing the Bartels family for its unremitting commitment to the University and its students through generous support of scholarships and academic programs. I am honored to be a part of recognizing this tremendous family and formalizing this special recognition in memory of Henry E. ``Hank'' Bartels. Over the past forty years, Hank and Nancy Bartels, along with their son Philip, and his wife, Susan, have contributed immeasurably to UNH's development, supporting its mission of providing high quality experiential education, through a combination of liberal arts and real- world, hands-on professional training. In the words of President Kaplan, ``The Bartels family has established an indelible legacy at this institution and has touched the lives of countless students.'' The Bartels continue this tradition by demonstrating an unwavering appreciation for UNH, its potential, and the promise it delivers to innumerable students. There is no greater tribute to Hank Bartels and that of the entire Bartels family than its most recent work in commissioning UNH's inaugural Washington Program. The initial launch of the program last fall consisted of a team of 19 students participating in the 2014 Annual Model United Nation Conference. They were Aemin Becker, Matthew Belletete, Connor Briggs, Juliana Calcagno, Rob Granoth, Jamie Harron, James Hart, Elise Lenahan, Sarah Markland, Amanda Nash, Emily Nash, Samanth Paquette, Melissa Peil, Paul Raffile, Bobby Rousseau, Jessica Sattler, Emil Thomsen, Randi Trinidad, and Connor Vargo. In preparation for the competition, students were exposed to high-level briefings by international stakeholders based in Washington, DC and Federal officials integral to the operation of the UN and its missions. As a result of the intense preparation and high-caliber exposure to UN stakeholders, the UNH delegation won the Distinguished Delegation Award, an honor bestowed to only 14 colleges and universities out of the more than 100 from the U.S. and abroad that participated. The next installment of UNH's Washington Program consisted of a semester course entitled, American Rome: Washington DC--Power, Politics, Policy. This course exposed students to the structure and culture of the U.S. Federal government as it relates to the national security system. The course culminated in a week in Washington where students met with current and former officials from the Executive Branch, Federal Agencies, and Congress, as well as academia. During this week, 15 UNH students visited the White House, Pentagon, Capitol Hill, Federal Bureau of Investigations, Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency and U.S. Naval Academy. Students included Naif Alharbi, Brittany Codiana, Lindsey Conley, Zachery Fiermonti, Michael Hagen, Sarah Hoffman, Ryan Lebel, Sebika Mazumdar, Paul Raffile, Richard Rotella, Elizabeth Rowan, Jonathan Trinh, Andrew Walles, Walter Williams, and Cassidy Yotnakparian. In the words of one participating student, ``This is my first Political Science/National Security class here at UNH, and it has truly changed my perspective on my future career; the trip made me want to join the Navy then work in Washington after a military career.'' Each student indicated the visit to Washington heightened interests to serve our country as military officials, civil servants or another capacity to enhance the country's national security interests. As a result of the Bartels family's incredible generosity, these students were able to travel to Washington and engage in a transformational experience that will undoubtedly help shape the careers and lives of our country's next generation of leaders. I am proud to join the students, faculty and university administration-- particularly Dr. Steven Kaplan, President, Dr. Daniel May, Provost, Dr. Lourdes Alvarez, Dean of College of Arts & Sciences, Dr. Mario Gaboury, Dean Henry C. Lee College of Criminal Justice and Forensic Sciences, Dr. Chris Haynes, Assistant Professor and Political Science Coordinator, Dr. Matthew Schmidt, Assistant Professor of National Security and Political Science, Dr. Patricia Crouse, Practitioner in Residence, Department of Political Science, and Dr. Christy Smith, Assistant Professor of Public Administration--in expressing the deepest gratitude to the Bartels family for providing these young men and women with a solid foundation and instilling a sense of purpose and service to our great nation.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure today that I rise to join Mayor Toni Harp and the City of New Haven as they pay tribute to New Haven native Fred Parris at the City's 377th Anniversary celebration. Today, community leaders and residents will gather to plant five trees, one for each century during which the City of New Haven has been incorporated. As they do so, they will pay homage to the City's ``deep roots'' by recognizing one of our civic icons, Fred Parris. Founder and lead singer of The Five Satins, Fred's extraordinary story began in 1953 when he started singing as a student at Hillhouse High School in a group called the Scarlets. The group disbanded when its members joined the army in 1956 and Fred Parris found himself stationed at Philadelphia's Navy Yard. On weekends, Fred would often return to New Haven and sing for fun with a few friends from the neighborhood. In fact, they could often be found singing on street corners along bustling Dixwell Avenue. At the insistence of a local record company owner, Fred got together with Jim Freeman, Lou Peebles, Eddie Martin and Stanley Dortch to form the Five Satins--the era of Doo-Wop music was born. One night, while on guard duty at 4 am, Fred penned ``In The Still of the Night'' bringing a musical gift to the world. It has been over 50 years since they recorded ``In the Still of the Night'' in the basement of St. Bernadette's church in New Haven. Just weeks later, Fred was shipped out by the time the record made the national charts, he was stationed in Japan and had to be replaced by Bill Baker. When Fred returned from the army, he again became the group's lead, recording songs like ``Shadows'' and ``I'll Be Seeing You.'' ``In the Still of the Night'' has sold millions of copies and is still one of the most requested ``golden oldies'' on almost every Top- 40 radio station in the country. In fact, when Rolling Stone magazine released its list of ``The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time'' a few years ago, ``In the Still of the Night '' was right up there at #90--in between #89 ``California Dreamin'' by The Mamas & The Papas and #91 ``Suspicious Minds'' by Elvis Presley. Fred and his Five Satins continued recording well into the 1980's and in 2003 were inducted into the Vocal Group Hall of Fame. Fred, along with his wife, Emma, continues to make the Greater New Haven community their home today and Fred continues to perform. He is true community treasure and I am honored to join Mayor Harp and all of those gathered today in paying him tribute.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Let me say thank you to my colleague from New Jersey. I appreciate her kind words, but it is also true that she has been a strong, strong supporter of what this trade agreement might do to working families in the United States because where her heart and soul and where her values are, are going to strengthen the middle class in this country, not take the jobs away, not lower their wages, but make sure they can take care of themselves and their families. I was so pleased to see another colleague from New Jersey here as well, and I am proud to join this effort. On Monday, the beginning of this week, I went to Ansonia, Connecticut, which is in my district. I went to a place called the Ansonia Copper and Brass Company. There I was with the gentleman, John Barto, who was formerly the vice president of Ansonia Copper and Brass. John used to work there alongside of hundreds of others. He made specialty metal products, products that were used by U.S. industry and our military. Not so long ago the company employed thousands. Today this site lies vacant. All of those jobs have gone. What closed this plant? Unfair competition from overseas, exacerbated by bad trade deals. Just don't listen to me on this. These are the words of a gentleman that I stood with in a hollowed-out building where the rain was coming through the roof on Monday because it is vacant and it is becoming just derelict. They are now taking the steel out of there to see what they can do to sell it in order to see what kind of revenue can be raised. This is what he says: ``These trade agreements are always promised to bring money and jobs and prosperity to our country, but they've done the exact opposite. We were a supplier to the United States Navy for over 70 years for a very critical part. Now that part is no longer made in this country, and that's terrible.'' Further: ``I think we already know that this is going to be like NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement). There's something undeniably suspicious about an agreement when you're not able to see it''--to read it, to understand what is in it. Finally, I will just say that his words and he did strike a chord when he talked about: We've long understood that currency manipulation is the driving force behind jobs existing in this country. It hasn't changed. That's an issue. We talk about NAFTA, we talk about CAFTA, most recently the Korea free trade agreement, and they are going to change things, bring jobs, help manufacturing. It has done nothing short of the exact opposite. I am living, breathing proof . . . This was a vibrant company. There were 300 people-plus working here . . . Now there are zero jobs, zero revenues . . . Hundreds upon hundreds of employees, thousands worked here over time . . . generations of families were supported by this company, and it's with great sadness that we find ourselves here today. The fact is the enemy is ourselves . . . We have got to get our Senators and all of our elected representatives to understand what we're up against is currency manipulation. I don't for a second believe that we need to take this deal, negotiate it in the back room. Our elected officials cannot see it. That squashes democracy. It reeks of impropriety. What is going on here where we cannot see this agreement? These are not my words. I didn't work at Ansonia Copper and Brass. But today, John Barto, a former vice president, is trying to find another job for himself and for his family. That is the story that this free trade agreement is all about. What has gone on here and what is happening in our manufacturing sector is that problems are leaving people struggling to find middle class jobs. American manufacturing jobs are being lost; foreign products are being subsidized, and those are coming in, and it is about these bad trade agreements. The United States is poised to sign the biggest trade agreement of them all, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and it is a very dangerous prospect for our economy, for our working families. It forces Americans to compete with low-paid workers in developing countries like Vietnam, where the minimum wage is 56 cents an hour. It hazards the health of our families by opening up our borders still wider to dangerous, unregulated food, toxic seafood from Malaysia and from Vietnam. It empowers foreign companies to challenge all kinds of U.S. laws, without ever stepping foot inside an American courtroom. It promotes corporate special interests. It relegates labor rights and environmental protections to the sidelines. It does nothing to confront the currency cheats whose abuses have already cost Connecticut over 32,000 jobs. Now the administration wants us to give it a rubberstamp to say: You go ahead and complete the negotiations that they have been engaged in for the last 5 years without any congressional input so that they can complete the deal without us knowing what is in this Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. What is fast track? What does it mean? No public scrutiny; limited debate in the House of Representatives; and no ability by Members of Congress, who have the constitutional authority to review free trade agreements, it gives us no opportunity to amend the process. If we wanted to change it, we can't change it once you have given fast track. We have been here before. The administration sought fast-track authority last year. It failed. They produced another bill that came out of a committee in the United States Senate; and in the House it is exactly the same, almost exactly the same as it was last year. Our view is it is dead on arrival this time as well. On that issue of currency which Mr. Barto spoke so poignantly about, which, currency manipulation, when a country devalues its currency, it makes their goods cheaper than our goods. The administration has refused to put a currency chapter in the free trade agreement, and they have said that. They wrote a letter to the United States Senators. That is the biggest link in losing jobs and depressing wages. I will finish up on this. What is the economic challenge that we face today? People in our country are in jobs that just don't pay them enough money to pay their bills. Middle class families are struggling. Wages are stagnant today. Why would we want to support a free trade agreement that will only exacerbate this problem? It will not create jobs and, further, it will depress wages. We counter, say ``no'' to fast track and that we are not going to stand by. We are going to exercise our constitutional authority as Members of the House of Representatives. Read this piece of legislation, and it has to reflect not our ideas, but what our constituents believe is the right thing to do on their behalf. I can't thank you enough for organizing this effort today. You can be sure that every single day we are going to be up on our feet and finding the votes to say ``no'' to fast track and ``yes'' to the American people and to working families in this country. I thank the gentlelady.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Job Corps on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary. Five decades ago, President Lyndon Johnson stood before Congress and challenged us to end poverty in the United States. Job Corps is a critical part of the answer to that challenge. Since 1965, the program has helped level the playing field for more than two million disadvantaged young men and women through its 125 centers across 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Young people come to Job Corps unsure about their future and often in need of a second chance. When they graduate, they are ready to take on the challenges and opportunities of the adult world. Put simply, Job Corps changes lives for the better. Job Corps is not like other career preparation programs. It does not just train and educate its participants. It instills in them discipline, structure, and the social skills they need to be successful in their lives. I had the honor of taking part in the opening of Connecticut's very first Job Corps center in New Haven in 1996. A year later, I returned to serve as graduation speaker. I was amazed at how far the students had come. Today, the New Haven Job Corps center is among the best in the nation. Armed with the right skills, its alumni pursue careers everywhere from Yale-New Haven Hospital to the Department of Homeland Security. Job Corps successfully places more than three quarters of its graduates in higher education programs or careers. Thanks to this track record of achievement, our nation now has many more skilled young people ready for careers as emergency medical technicians, chefs, nurses, carpenters, entrepreneurs, and all kinds of other vocations. No investment is more critical than investment in our human capital. If we want to compete in the global economy, we must invest in the workers of tomorrow and give them the skills they need to succeed. For half a century, Job Corps has been doing just that. I could not be more proud of the role I have played, as Chair and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds Job Corps, in supporting the program. I congratulate Job Corps, its staff, and its many graduates on fifty years of success.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this reckless and regressive bill. My colleagues in the Majority often claim to be opposed to government spending they describe as ``wasteful.'' But this bill is the epitome of wasteful spending. By permanently repealing the estate tax, without any additional revenue whatsoever to cover the losses, it increases our nation's deficit by almost $270 billion. Make no mistake--tax breaks are spending. Moreover, this bill spends money on those who need it least. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, only the wealthiest 0.2 percent of estates will benefit at all, and almost three quarters of the benefits will go to estates worth more than $20 million. For every rich estate that reaps the benefits of this bill, there are ten thousand of our fellow citizens living in poverty. Yet the same House Majority that now supports this bill also passed a budget last month that would cut $125 billion from food stamps and kick up to 20 million Americans off Medicaid--all at a time when working families are struggling to make ends meet. Talk about misplaced priorities. Madam Speaker, instead of spending hundreds of billions on a tax break for a wealthy elite, we should be directing more assistance to those who are in genuine need. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to defeat the previous question so that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) can offer an amendment for the House to immediately consider the Paycheck Fairness Act. Yesterday we marked yet another Equal Pay Day. What is Equal Pay Day? That means that it took 104 days for the average woman's earnings to catch up with what the average man made last year--104 days. That is exactly 104 days too long. It has been 52 years since the Equal Pay Act became law, and a woman still makes only 78 cents, on average, for every dollar earned by a man. That is almost $10,000 a year or almost half a million dollars over the course of the average career. The gap has barely changed in over a decade. Even in nursing, a profession that is more than 90 percent female, a study last month showed that men earned $5,100 more per year on average than women, when you control for education, experience, and other factors. Clearly, we must do more to close the gender pay gap. That is why, 3 weeks ago, I reintroduced the Paycheck Fairness Act. My bill would finish the job started by the Equal Pay Act. It would end pay secrecy across the board. It would require employers to prove that pay disparities are not based on gender. Passing the bill would give real teeth to a very simple principle: men and women in the same job deserve the same pay. The Paycheck Fairness Act enjoys bipartisan support. It has passed the House twice already and came just two votes shy of passing in the Senate. President Obama has called on us to pass it. More crucially still, the American people know the importance of paycheck fairness. In October, a Gallup poll asked Americans to identify the top issue facing women in the workplace. Equal pay was, by far, the most common response among men as well as women. All across the country today, working families are in trouble. Wages are stagnant. The single biggest issue that we face today in our economy is that men and women are in jobs that do not pay them enough money to live on. Many are struggling--struggling--to feed their children and to heat their homes. It is time that we look at equal pay because equal pay is a crucial part of the solution to this problem. Women are half of the workforce. Two-thirds of us are breadwinners for our families. Lower pay for women means less gas in the car; less food on the table; less money in the college fund; and, yes, less spending to support our economy. President Obama and the Department of Labor have shown the way by taking action to protect women who work for Federal contractors. It is high time that we in the Congress acted to extend real, enforceable pay equity protection for all women. Equal pay for equal work is the right thing to do; it is the smart thing to do, and it is the popular thing to do. It is time to make it a reality for all Americans. For those of us who are in the Congress, we all come to this institution from different parts of the country. We come from different skill sets, different educational backgrounds, and different philosophies, yet we are in the same job, and men and women in this institution get paid the same amount of money. That ought to be extended to every woman in this Nation. That is why we should defeat the previous question here so that we can introduce the paycheck fairness bill. I thank the gentleman.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to defeat the previous question so that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) can offer an amendment for the House to immediately consider the Paycheck Fairness Act. Three weeks ago, I reintroduced the Paycheck Fairness Act. My bill would finish the job started by the Equal Pay Act some 50 years ago. It would end pay secrecy across the board. It would require employers to prove that pay disparities are not based on gender, and passing the bill would give teeth to a very, very simple principle: men and women in the same job deserve the same pay. The Paycheck Fairness Act has passed the House twice already, with bipartisan support I might add. It has come just two votes shy of passing in the other body. President Obama has called on us to pass it. More crucially still, the American people know the importance of paycheck fairness. In October, a Gallup poll asked Americans to identify the top issue facing women in the workplace. Equal pay was, by far, the most common response among men as well as women. All across the country today, working families are in trouble. Their wages are stagnant. They are in jobs that just don't pay them enough to be able to pay their bills. They are struggling to heat their homes and to feed their children. Equal pay is a crucial part of the solution to this problem, since women are more than half of the workforce. Two-thirds of us are breadwinners for our families. Lower pay for women means less gas in the car, less food on the table, less money in the college fund, and less spending to support our economy. Today is yet another Equal Pay Day. What Equal Pay Day means is that it has taken 104 days for the average woman's earnings to catch up with what the average man made last year. That is exactly 104 days too long. Fifty-two years since the Equal Pay Act became law, a woman still only makes 78 cents, on average, for every dollar earned by a man. The gap has barely changed in over a decade. For women of color the disparities are wider still. Their Equal Pay Day will not arrive until May or June. Even in nursing, a profession that is more than 90 percent female, a study last month showed that men earned $5,100 more per year, on average, than women when controlling for education, experience, and other factors. Clearly, we must do more to close the gender pay gap. President Obama and the Department of Labor have shown the way by taking action to protect women who work for Federal contractors. It is now time that we in the Congress act to extend real, enforceable pay equity protection to all women. Equal pay for equal work is the right thing to do. It is the smart thing to do. It, in fact, would reflect what today's economy is all about with women being in the workplace overwhelmingly. It is time to make it a reality for all Americans, and I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and admiration that I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Edward Zigler, the father of Head Start, as we mark the 50th Anniversary of this inspired early learning program. President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, ``We must open the doors of opportunity. But we must also equip our people to walk through those doors.'' That is what exactly what the Head Start program has done for millions of children across our nation for the last five decades. In his 1964 State of the Union Address, President Johnson declared a War on Poverty. Central to this effort was the idea that access to a comprehensive child development program which ensured school readiness could make all the difference for disadvantaged families. As policy makers, we often look to those with field expertise for advise and counsel. There are few that have served in these halls in the last fifty years who will not recognize the name Dr. Edward Zigler. A member of the National Planning and Steering Committee for Project Head Start, Ed was appointed the founding Director of the Office of Child Development, now the Administration on Children and Families, to lead the Head Start program and he has served as a consultant to every Administration since the program's inception. Designed to break the cycle of poverty and based on the fundamental idea that education is critical to success, Head Start began as an eight-week demonstration project and has grown exponentially. Today, Head Start serves over one million children in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories. Re-authorized and expanded under each Administration over the last fifty years, there is no doubt that Head Start has had an impact on the lives of some of our most vulnerable citizens. Today, as we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of Head Start, we also pay tribute to the man whose invaluable contributions, not only in its inception but throughout its implementation, have been the driving force behind Head Start's success. Ed Zigler, with his extraordinary vision and unwavering tenacity, has changed our understanding of the connections between poverty and education, shaped our public policy, and changed the course of millions of lives. It has been my great privilege to have the opportunity to work closely with Ed on issues both here in Washington and in Connecticut. I find myself in constant awe of his intellect and commitment and consider myself fortunate to call him my friend. Today, on behalf of the millions of families that have been changed for the better by Head Start, I am honored to join the National Head Start Association in extending my deepest thanks and sincere gratitude to Dr. Edward Zigler. He has left an indelible mark on our nation and his is a legacy that will continue to improve the quality of life of those most in need for generations to come.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this budget. Hardworking American families are in deep trouble. Their wages have been stagnant or in decline for 30 years. Their jobs have been sent overseas by bad trade deals. They have seen none of the benefit of the economic recovery. These families are struggling to put bread on their tables and heat their homes, let alone take a vacation or start a college fund. Many are just one big expense away from disaster. We should be working to support these families, and make sure that they do not fall deeper into poverty. Instead, this radical and regressive budget would pull the rug out from under them. It would cut $1.8 trillion from Medicaid, and rob 14 million people of their coverage. It would turn the whole program into a block grant, leaving millions of families in limbo It would repeal the Affordable Care Act, increasing by millions the number of uninsured people in this country. It would partly privatize Medicare, allowing private insurers to cherry pick healthy seniors and leaving the rest of the program in ruins. It would block-grant the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, reducing benefits and barring access to this lifeline for millions of people. It would freeze the maximum Pell grant, denying low-income students a chance at college just as they need it more than ever to get into the middle class. All this at a time when we are spending close to $1.5 trillion every year on tax breaks and loopholes--much of it directed toward the wealthy and special interests. That is the spending we should be going after. Hardworking Americans need our help. After years of neglect, we should be investing in them once more. Instead, this budget leaves them out in the cold. We cannot allow this to happen. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep respect and deep admiration that I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding leader and my dear friend, Nancy J. DiNardo. Tonight, family, friends, and colleagues gather to express our thanks and appreciation to Nancy as she marks the end of her decade long tenure as Chairman of Connecticut's State Democratic Party. As the first woman to hold the office, Nancy has shattered glass ceilings while her tenacity and commitment has earned her respect from Democratic and Republican political leaders alike. Nancy's desire to give back to her community led her to public service. She was first elected to public office over forty years ago as a member of the Trumbull Town Council and she went on to serve on several other local boards and commissions by both election and appointment. Nancy has also served as the local Chairperson of the Trumbull Democratic Town Committee for thirty years. She dedicated her professional career to education, serving in the Bridgeport public school system as a teacher, school psychologist, and later Director of Psychological Services. Central to Democrats ideology is our belief that we, as individuals and as a society, are greater together than we are on our own--that our communities and our nation are most successful when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules. Nancy's dedication to these values led her to seek a more active role in Connecticut's Democratic Party. She sought and won election to the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee in 1998 and has been an active member ever since, even serving as Finance Chair from 2002 to 2004. In January of 2005, Nancy was the first woman to be elected Chair in the history of the Connecticut Democratic Party. She brought a renewed focus to both the position and the Party. She re-engaged local town chairs and committees, created special caucuses under the Party umbrella to ensure a broader voice was being heard, and provided new opportunities for younger people to get involved. As Chair, Nancy supported candidates on the municipal, state, and federal level--often spending a majority of the day crisscrossing the state to attend events and functions. Under her tenure, Democratic candidates enjoyed great success including bringing an entirely Democratic federal delegation to Washington and winning back the Governor's office after more than two decades. Though Nancy stepped down from the Chairmanship, she continues to remain involved in the Democratic Party on both the state and national level. Earlier this year, she was unanimously elected Vice Chair of the State Party and continues to serve on the Democratic National Committee where she has been elected twice to serve as Chair of Eastern Regional Caucus and is a member of the Executive Committee. Nancy J. DiNardo left an indelible mark on the office of State Party Chair and I could not be more proud to stand today to pay tribute to her remarkable dedication and extend my heartfelt thanks for her outstanding public service. I, like so many others, cannot thank her enough for her continued friendship and support. We are more than friends--we are kindred spirits. I know that she will continue to make a difference and wish her the best for continued success in all of her good work.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with the deepest respect and admiration that I rise today to join the Town of Wallingford and particularly its police force in extending my sincere thanks and appreciation to Douglas Dortenzio as he celebrates his retirement after twenty-four years of dedicated service as Police Chief and a forty-two year career in law enforcement. His retirement marks the end of a distinguished career in law enforcement and the Department will simply not be the same without him. Chief Dortenzio began his career in the New Haven Police Department. During his eighteen year career with the NHPD, he rose through the ranks and was a major when he was selected to serve as Chief of the Wallingford Department. For the last twenty-four years he has served the Department, his officers, and the Wallingford community with honor and distinction. Throughout his career, Chief Dortenzio dedicated himself to ensuring the protection and safety of the Wallingford community. He is a staunch believer in the concept of community policing and under his tenure he has focused the Department's efforts towards building a strong relationship between the Department and the community. As head of the Wallingford Police Department, Chief Dortenzio made the men and women of the Department his highest priority--always ensuring that they had access to the most current technologies and equipment. He has always fought for the resources, programs, and services he believes are in the best interest of the members of his Department and would most benefit the community. Chief Dortenzio's efforts to create a parents' guide for sober teen celebrations have been recognized by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and he has been involved in its Red Ribbon Campaigns and National Sobriety Checkpoint Week. He has served as a member of the State of Connecticut Police Officer Standards and Training Council, the State of Connecticut Emergency Management & Homeland Security Coordinating Council, the U.S. Attorney's Office Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council, and the FBI--Joint Terrorism Task Force. He is a past President of the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association and was a member of the Police Chiefs' delegation invited to Washington, D.C. to watch then President Bill Clinton sign a national crime bill. With all of his work, at the Department and in the community, Chief Dortenzio still made time to be of great assistance to myself and my staff. He has been an invaluable resource to us all and I want to extend my deepest thanks and sincere appreciation for all of his many years of support and friendship. Chief Douglas Dortenzio has demonstrated an unparalleled commitment and has left an indelible mark on the Town of Wallingford--he will be missed. As he celebrates his retirement, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join his wife Pat and daughter, Christine, as well as family, friends, and colleagues in wishing him the very best for many more years of health and happiness.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the Shubert Theater of New Haven as they mark their 100th Anniversary. Nationally renowned and locally beloved, this community treasure has been bringing the magic and beauty of theater to generations of patrons. The ``Birthplace of the Nation's Greatest Hits,'' the Shubert is the heart of New Haven's arts community and its century of success is a reflection of the incredible contributions the Shubert has made--not only in Connecticut but across the country. Designed by New York architect Albert Swazey and built by New Haven's H.E. Murdock construction company, Lee and JJ Shubert opened the doors of their newest theater Friday, December 11, 1914. Theatergoers and critics alike were not only impressed with the opening show but with the playhouse itself. It quickly became a favorite among the theater community as well, often sought after to try out shows before bringing them to Broadway. Away We Go, later renamed Oklahoma!, Carousel, South Pacific, The King and I, The Sound of Music, and Tennesee Williams' A Streetcar Named Desire all had their world premieres at the Shubert. It is also where countless actors received their first professional acclaim-- Marlon Brando, Humphrey Bogart, Katherine Hepburn, Gene Kelly, Robert Redford, Shirley MacLaine, Sidney Poitier, James Earl Jones, Liza Minnelli, and former First Lady Nancy Reagan just to name a few. While the Shubert has had its share of ups and downs, even threatened with destruction, in 1976, the local community has fought to protect this invaluable piece of our arts community. Today, in addition to Broadway offerings and performances of dance, cabaret, popular music and entertainment, the Shubert also runs comprehensive education and outreach programs. The Shubert is a cornerstone of New Haven's arts community and as such it also seeks to support local artists and organizations. In fact, just recently, the Shubert collaborated with the local theater company, A Broken Umbrella Theatre, to bring Seen Change! to stage. Written, directed, produced, and starring a variety of local actors, it was a wonderful celebration of the Shubert, its remarkable history, and the magic and wonder the theater brings to its audiences. The Shubert Theater of New Haven is a beloved local treasure that has left an indelible mark on our community as well as the world of the performing arts. Today, as it marks its centennial anniversary, its leadership can be very proud of all that it has accomplished and continues to contribute to our community. I have no doubt that the Shubert will remain a beacon of Broadway for generations to come--its ghost light never darkened. Happy 100th Anniversary and best wishes for another century of success.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Thank you so much. I want to thank my colleague from New York for leading this effort tonight and for being shoulder-to-shoulder with so many of us, both inside the House of Representatives and in the large, vast coalition that is outside of the House of Representatives that says ``no'' to fast track; we are not going to do this. So I applaud you and all of your efforts, and for standing up here on the floor most nights and talking about this issue so that the American public knows what is going on here because it is our responsibility to let them know. They are not following fast-track Trade Promotion Authority or the Trans-Pacific Partnership every single day the way we are. But it is our responsibility to know how, in fact, it is going to affect their lives. I would also say to you that I know you and I know so many of our other colleagues, we are not opposed to trade. We are not. We are in favor of fair trade. That is what we are about. I believe you are--and I am--a strong proponent of the Export-Import Bank. It helped American business to compete around the world for 70 years. That is the kind of trade policy that we need. Reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank for another 7 years before its charter expires in June. What we must not do is to sign up to yet another bad free trade agreement, a deal that subjects American workers to competition that is neither free nor fair. And far too many of these trade agreements-- particularly, as you pointed out, in the last 20 years--have done nothing but deepen our trade deficit, lower our wages, and send American jobs overseas. An example: 3 years ago, we signed the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement with the bells and ruffles, the ruffle of drums and all of this effort that we are going to create jobs, increase wages. Yes, we are going to have more exports. Well, you have got to know how to add and you have to know how to subtract. We have got exports, but look at the flow of imports which is hurting American workers. Since this trade agreement 3 years ago, our trade deficit with South Korea has gone up 71 percent; and given the administration and the way they calculate the job loss, using their metrics, we are talking about 74,000 American jobs. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is built on that template of the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement, so it follows the same failed model, but it is on a much, much larger scale. It forces our manufacturing and technology base into unfair and unequal competition with other nations throughout the Asia Pacific region. There are 11 countries. So as you pointed out, it pits good-paying American jobs against Vietnamese workers who make 56 cents an hour. It asks American exporters to compete against Japanese producers who are propped up by currency manipulation, an abuse that has cost our economy almost 6 million jobs in 2013 alone. What happened? These countries--Japan, Singapore, and China-- devaluate their currency. Their goods become cheaper; ours are more expensive. It puts us at a serious disadvantage. As you know, my colleague, this trade agreement contains nothing that would disallow currency manipulation. We have been told by the administration that there will not be a currency chapter in this bill. So we are going to go down the road where these countries can continue to put our workers and our products at a disadvantage. You have a predictable pattern here: cheap, foreign products flow in, American jobs flow out, and our wages are on a downward spiral. The ill effects don't stop there. Most of the TPP's 29 chapters are not about trade at all. They are about rolling back laws in a way that plays directly into the hands of Big Business. The former director of the National Economic Council, Larry Summers, has highlighted corporate efforts to use the Trans-Pacific Partnership to ``change health and safety regulations, extend and strengthen patent protections, and deregulate financial services.'' We know that Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury, National Economic Council, is no leftwing radical. That is the way they would like to portray those of us who oppose TPP. He is a thoughtful individual. That is the conclusion he comes to: it changes health and safety regulations, extends and strengthens patent protections, and deregulates financial services. A Nobel-Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, points out: The overall thrust of the intellectual property section of the TPP is for less competition and higher drug prices. TPP can weaken our environmental protection. It opens the door to unsafe food. It could raise the cost of medicines. It can make it harder to defend against financial risks. The truth is proponents of the TPP know that their economic case has failed, and lately we have heard them try another tack. They tell us that TPP is going to help America counter the rise of Chinese power in the Asia Pacific region, and if we pass TPP, we will be able to set the rules. It is absurd. It really is absurd. Quite frankly, if you want to do something about China, do something about currency manipulation and what China has been doing as regular policy in buying up our reserves. Currency manipulation is their policy. Rules that encourage offshoring, gut our manufacturing and our technology base, and compromise the health and safety of our consumers are not American rules, but rules that favor big corporations at the expense of everyone else. You know as well as I do, Congressman Tonko, who is in the room and who is out of the room, who is in the negotiations and who is out of the negotiations. There is room at the table for a long list of multinational corporations: Walmart, Verizon, Halliburton, Dow, General Electric, Caterpillar, Hershey, Boeing, AdvaMed, DuPont, Intel, Lockheed Martin, and many others. But do you know who is not at the table? The American workers are not at the table who are going to be forced to pay the price in lost jobs and low wages. And there is no room for Members of Congress. We have been systematically frozen out of the process. For months, I pressed to get a copy of the negotiating draft, and I was told it was classified, but now I have seen pieces of the text. When I got into the room with a small part of the text, I discovered that it was not classified at all, that they said it was classified, but it is classified as a confidential document. It is not secret. It doesn't have a top-secret classification. They just don't want us to see it. They have placed every single restriction on our ability to read this agreement front to back, to ask questions, to know who said what, what country said what, and what the U.S. position is about all of this. They have been working at this for 4\1/2\ years, and now they have come because they know that fast track is in jeopardy. They know that this treaty is in jeopardy, and they say: Oh, we would like to have you read the text but it is classified, and you can't have any staff there except for someone who has a security clearance. They are holding us to a standard that the treaty does not impose. Let's stop playing the games. Jobs are at stake. Workers have a right to know what is being done in their name. We Representatives in Congress are their representatives. We have that responsibility to ensure that TPP either protects jobs or does not happen at all. Now, you talked about Trade Promotion Authority fast track. What is it? It is a rubber stamp. It says: Okay, trust us. You can't see the document. You can only see bits and pieces of it. It is classified, but give us fast track where there is no public scrutiny of the document, limited congressional debate, and no ability to amend the document at all. Just vote for us, and we will take care of your interests. President Reagan said trust, but verify. We are trying to verify. To give them that fast track authority, in my view, your view, this coalition's view, would be a big mistake. The potential consequences of the TPP are simply too great. We cannot surrender our constitutional authority, our ability to scrutinize this agreement and to amend it. Working Americans are in trouble today. Their paychecks have been stagnant or in decline for over 30 years. They are struggling to put food on the table and to heat their homes, let alone take a vacation or send their kids to college. Bad trade deals have played a leading role in creating this situation, bad public policy, and these trade agreements have been bad public policy. Good, stable manufacturing jobs used to be a bridge to the middle class until they were sent overseas to places where labor is cheap, only to be replaced with poorly paid service sector jobs. Workers who are laid off face an uphill battle to get rehired. If they find new jobs, three out of five are forced to work for lower wages. That is the reality of what happens when we sign these ill-considered free trade agreements. Why would we volunteer America and American workers for yet more punishment? Why would we do that? If we want to help the middle class, if we are for middle class economics, why would we do this? Why would we make it easier for Big Business to send their jobs overseas? The time has come. Enough is enough. No more low wages. No more lost jobs. No more bad trade deals. And that is where we are now. The Congress, the House of Representatives, has woken up. They are stirred up. They believe this is a bad deal. They haven't been allowed to investigate it, to read it, to read the bill as the public asked us to do with the Affordable Care Act those years ago, and then they want us to put our imprimatur on this effort. That is why there is so much consternation. That is why the Members of Congress, the Members of the House of Representatives, are saying no. I believe we will defeat fast track because the American public doesn't want this treaty. The American public doesn't want to see their representatives unable to talk to them about it, and the Members of Congress are reasserting their responsibility and saying, unless we see it, unless we read it, unless we ask the questions, unless we know who the negotiating partners are, and unless we say yes, then our answer to the administration is no. I thank you for organizing this.

Ms. DeLAURO. Bingo.

Ms. DeLAURO. Amen.

Ms. DeLAURO. Or killed.

Ms. DeLAURO. Let me make one more point. Ms. Kaptur is here, and she has really been in the forefront of these debates and these issues for so many years, because the other side tries to portray us as, well, if you don't want this fast track authority, what would you want? Over the years, and particularly over the last several months, the last year and a half, Democratic Members of the House of Representatives have written to the administration, to the USTR, that is the U.S. Trade Representative, and we have made suggestions of how we could increase congressional input into this process by looking at who the negotiating partners are, what the objectives are, the enforcement of those objectives, and how we have a chance to certify that the objectives have been met and say yes, and then we move forward, the administration moves forward. We have been said no to over and over and over again. So, in fact, there has been no congressional input, though we have tried for a very, very long time to do that. The public needs to know that, because we just cannot have our head in the sand and just say no.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed rollcall vote No. 91 regarding the ``On Question of Consideration of the Resolution'' (Providing for further consideration of H.R. 5, the Student Success Act, H. Res 125). Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Upon signing the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act, President Johnson described education as ``the only valid passport from poverty.'' This bill threatens to tear up that passport. It caps Federal education funding at 2015 levels, levels which are already woefully inadequate after years of drastic cuts, and makes no provision for inflation, let alone the growing need for Federal education programs. The bill allows States to direct Federal dollars away from schools in districts with the greatest poverty. It permits States to reduce education funding with no accountability. It allows schools in wealthier neighborhoods to use title I funding without having to target funds to the students with the greatest needs. It is a blatant betrayal of the ESEA's fundamental purpose, which is to level the playing field for low-income kids. It weakens or eliminates many successful programs, including 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative, which provides quality after school, summer school programs for disadvantaged children. Mr. Chairman, it used to be that hard work in schools and on the job was the surest ticket to the middle class. Today, that compact is broken. Millions of hardworking families do not earn enough to make ends meet, let alone move up in the world. The cuts proposed in this bill would make matters even worse. Kids from poor neighborhoods are already being neglected, while those from wealthy areas get an ever- increasing slice of the pie. These disparities reverberate throughout their lives to create an increasingly divided, unequal society. Let me put it simply: Without broad access to quality education, there is no future for the middle class. With this legislation, the majority is saying to America's low-income kids: You are on your own. Mr. Chairman, that is not who we are. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed the following votes: Roll Call vote number 79 regarding the ``Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 644''. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes''. Roll Call vote number 80 regarding the ``Fighting Hunger Incentive Act of 2015''. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''. On the Motion to Adjourn on February 12, 2015. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No''.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed the following votes: rollcall vote No. 81 regarding the ``Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 636''. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''. Rollcall vote No. 82 regarding the ``America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2015''. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. On Approving the Journal on February 13th, 2015. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was Groundhog Day. How appropriate that the Republican majority chose today for their 56th attempt to repeal or to undermine the Affordable Care Act. These futile, ideological gestures are getting old. The vote I cast for the health care law is one of the proudest I have cast in my political career because the reforms that we put in place are helping millions of families across the Nation. Americans can no longer be denied coverage for a preexisting condition. Preventive screenings, maternity care, and pediatric care are now all covered. Seniors enjoy relief from high drug costs. Millions of low-income children have health care through the CHIP program. Women's health has been put on an equal footing. Insurers can no longer subject families to lifetime caps on coverage. Annual caps are being phased out. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Affordable Care Act has reduced the number of uninsured people by 12 million last year, 19 million this year. My Republican colleagues don't really care about that because they have health care as a Member of Congress. Why should they worry about people who do not have health care? The CBO has also cut its estimate of the cost of rolling out coverage to millions of Americans, a saving of $140 billion compared to previous estimates. This is good news. It should be on the front page of every newspaper. The Affordable Care Act has succeeded by putting people--not insurance companies--in charge of health care. It has given millions of families care that they can depend on. We are a better country because of it. Let me say to my colleagues in the majority: Give it a rest. Get a life. The American people like this law. The Supreme Court has upheld it. We have had two elections around it. Stop trying to take away people's health care benefits.