Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment benefits that protect over 26,000 workers in my State of Connecticut.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, while I will vote for this budget, despite having made reservations, I would like to say a few words about how Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education programs are handled here, keeping in mind that of the 12 subcommittees of appropriation, the Labor, HHS Subcommittee never even had a subcommittee markup of the bill. After Defense, the Labor, HHS Subcommittee has the largest portfolio of programs, programs that deal with people's everyday lives, the lives of ordinary Americans. The allocation for Labor, HHS was only $217 million above the 2013 presequester levels, only 12 percent of the nondefense funding increase, even though Labor, HHS makes up 32 percent of the nondefense budget, and this also despite the fact that we had over $1.4 billion in funding holes that had to be filled. The holes existed primarily because a few critical programs were living off of money appropriated a number of years ago, and that money is now all gone. Unlike all of the other appropriations bills, we were prevented from using all of the options at our disposal to ensure reasonable funding levels for our important priorities. As a result, many critical programs here are still seeing deep sequester cuts. The National Institutes of Health is the key driver of biomedical research in America, spurring innovation, economic growth, and good health for millions of Americans. Yet only 58 percent of the sequester cuts are restored in this budget. It is $700 million short. Another example, job training services are part of the core, essential role of government. They help responsible people succeed because of their own hard work and businesses to secure the employees they need to grow. Here, job training programs were only restored by 81 percent, short $45 million. Title I, which aids at-risk children, and IDEA, for children with disabilities, are two fundamental building blocks of our K through 12 education system. Both are only restored here by 85 percent. This bill does include some welcome and much-needed funding for other priorities, and for that, I am grateful to Ranking Member Lowey and to the unbelievably devoted staff, David Reich and Lisa Molyneux. Those priorities include mental health, Head Start, and child care. We need to do more to support these programs. Given the decade-long trend downward for Labor, HHS funding, level funding is not enough. We endanger our families and our future by shortchanging these programs. While I will support this budget, as we move forward, we can and we must do better by America's families.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I want to thank my colleague and just say that we really owe you a debt of gratitude. I know what it means as this is my 24th year that I have served in this body. Years ago, I would spend my days in 1-minute speeches and my evenings in Special Orders, and I know what it means and the kind of time and effort it takes. It is about your values and who you are, and a number of people that you attract come down and talk about these very critical issues, so we owe you a debt of gratitude for spearheading this effort. Every generation of leaders in this institution has faced its own time of testing. Whether it is an economic panic, the Great Depression, slavery, Jim Crow, the Civil War, world war, the Cold War, there are times when our country is confronted with a crisis that poses an existential threat to our Nation and to our way of life, and Congress needs to stand up and act. The test of our time is inequality. It is not too much to say that inequality threatens the continued existence of the middle class in America and even the American Dream, itself. The question before us now is: Are we going to continue to be the land of opportunity and social mobility and the Nation that forged the largest middle class in human history during the 20th century, or are we going to become a Nation of very few haves and millions of have- nots? As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said: We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. The current trend lines on inequality should serve as a wake-up call to everyone in this institution. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in 2011, while the top 1 percent of Americans have seen their income triple over the past 30 years and now make 23 percent of the total, middle and working class Americans have seen their wages stagnate and median income fall. The year after that report, 2012, shows the highest corporate profits, after taxes, and the lowest salaries and wages as a percentage of our gross domestic product in our history. The inequality we see in America today is not a crisis because some are rich and many are not. It is a crisis because the compact has been broken that allowed hard work to pay off and allowed future generations to do better. As a result, the middle class in America is under siege. It used to be that, through hard work and access to opportunity and education, a working class family could move up the ladder in America. They could buy a home, send their kids to college, have money to take an occasional vacation, and know that when they reached retirement, they would be okay. That is the story of my parents--and probably yours--who worked hard all their lives so I could go to college and follow my aspirations. That is the American Dream. For far too many families, that dream is fading away. American workers are being squeezed. Their paychecks have stagnated. Their benefits have been cut. Their homes are debt traps. Their job security has been weakened. Their wage and hour protections have been violated. And the safety net under them to help them on their feet in case they slip is being willfully shredded by some Members of this body. So yes, inequality is the crisis of our time. History will judge this Congress terribly if we do not do everything in our power to restore the middle class in America--to create good, well-paying jobs at home; ensure steady, rising wages; and promote opportunity and upward social mobility. There are many things that Congress can and should do to remedy this crisis. We can stop trying to savage the safety net by cutting unemployment insurance and food stamps. My colleagues have talked about 1.3 million people without unemployment benefits. And the temerity of leaving this institution, going home for the holidays, having a wonderful time with your families--and no one denies that you should have time with your family, but to leave these people on the roadside by themselves with nothing to be able to take care of themselves or their families, that is not the United States of America. That is not the Congress. That is not who we are or what we are about. We can pass a budget in this place that invests in our future, in our fundamental priorities--education and job training--but in this Nation of bounty, we can't talk about cutting food stamps, $8 billion, $9 billion, $20 billion, $40 billion. It is wrong. We can support initiatives that create jobs and grow the economy, like infrastructure, manufacturing, and biomedical research. We can pass a comprehensive economic agenda for women and families that reflects the way that Americans live today. And we can recognize, as Lyndon Johnson did 50 years ago with the war on poverty, that the Federal Government plays a hugely important role in alleviating hardship and inequality, and we should do everything that we can to support these efforts. And given the deep hole we are in, one of the most important things we can do is stop digging. Namely, we can think twice, again, about extending unemployment benefits. But further, we think twice before signing off on another free trade pact--the Trans-Pacific Partnership-- that threatens to aggressively accelerate the inequality and job insecurity that Americans are already experiencing. We have seen this movie. We know how it ends. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, and we know how that affected our economy and hurt our workers. So many of us were here during that debate. We cried the night of that vote because of what we knew it was going to mean to workers in the United States. One recent study estimated that as much as 39 percent of the observed growth in U.S. wage inequality since NAFTA is attributable to trade trends. Since NAFTA went into effect two decades ago, the share of national income collected by the top 10 percent of Americans has risen by 24 percent. The top 1 percent's share has increased by 58 percent. Meanwhile, the manufacturing jobs that helped forge America's middle class have been aggressively offshored. Millions of manufacturing jobs have disappeared in our country. They have been replaced by low-wage service sector work. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, two out of every three displaced manufacturing workers who were rehired in 2012 experienced a wage reduction, most of them more than 20 percent. Despite the trend, we are now being urged to pass fast track legislation introduced by Senator Baucus and Representative Camp to grease the wheels of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This agreement with 11 nations in the Pacific is unprecedented in scope and threatens to be NAFTA on steroids. Even the agreement is being negotiated in secret. Members of Congress have been left out of the loop, even though the agreement will create binding policies on the future Congresses in countless areas. We have the evidence that suggests that this agreement will only accelerate economic inequality and job insecurity for American workers. We are being told that we need to rubber-stamp it, that it is vital. Nine out of 11 nations in this agreement have wage levels significantly lower than ours. If there is pressure in any direction on already stagnant wages, it will be down. And I wind up with this. Harold Meyerson wrote in a very poignant column in today's Washington Post: When the case for free trade is coupled with the case for raising U.S. workers' incomes, it enters a zone where real numbers, and real Americans' lives, matter. In that zone, the argument for the kind of free trade deal embodied by NAFTA, permanent normal trade relations with China and the Trans-Pacific Partnership completely blows up. Such deals increase the incomes of Americans investing abroad even as they diminish the income of Americans working at home. They worsen the very inequality against which the President rightly campaigns. NAFTA has had a deep and lasting impact on our community. It has depressed wages. It has led to offshore jobs. It has meant more economic insecurity and less mobility for American workers. It has fed a rising tide of inequality that threatens to engulf the middle class in America for good. We cannot continue down this path that pushes the American Dream into oblivion. And I want to say to my colleagues and others--and I apologize for taking so much time--that we need to understand it is not one program here, one program there. This is a pattern that is overwhelming middle class America. Unless this institution has done what it has done in the past to change that direction, we will have a Nation that no longer has the economic advantages that it has had in the past, and people will no longer enjoy economic security, nor will their families. I thank the gentleman for doing what he does and for inspiring us to come down and talk with you.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the 90th anniversary of the Sikorsky Aircraft Company, one of the lynchpins of our State's advanced industrial base, a pillar of our national defense, and the world's premiere helicopter manufacturer. Ninety years ago, Russian-born inventor Igor Sikorsky opened the Sikorsky Aero Engineering Corporation for business on Long Island. Since then, the history of this pioneering company has been a string of firsts. Sikorsky built the first practical helicopter, the VS-300, in 1939. Five years later, a Sikorsky vehicle performed the first helicopter combat rescue in history, saving soldiers in Burma during World War II. In 1945, a Sikorsky helicopter took part in the first-ever civilian helicopter rescue, rescuing survivors from a sinking vessel in Long Island Sound. And in 1957, Dwight Eisenhower took the first Presidential ride in Sikorsky-made Marine One, long one of the defining symbols of the American Executive. Today, in my State of Connecticut, Sikorsky continues to build the best helicopters in the world, including the Black Hawks so critical to our national security, and to move the technology of rotor-powered aircraft forward. To UTC leadership and the almost 16,000 hardworking men and women of Sikorsky, congratulations on this anniversary, and here's to many more.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my objection to the misguided priorities that are taking shape in the conference farm bill. More and more, and despite payment reforms that were included in both the House and Senate legislation, it sounds like this farm bill plans to steal food from the poor to help pay crop subsidies to the rich. Unbelievably, on the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty, it is being reported that the farm bill currently being negotiated in conference will include cuts of roughly $8.5 billion to food stamps, denying critical food aid to over 800,000 households. Some of the same conferees who support these cuts are looking to strip out payment limits that are designed to stop the subsidizing of millionaire and billionaire farmers, a loophole they are reopening that was closed already. They are going to take food from the hungry: children, seniors, veterans, and workers. They are going to go out of their way to ensure that the wealthiest agribusinesses in America are getting handouts. Allowing poor Americans to starve so that we can subsidize rich corporations is not why we are here. It is cruel, it is corrupt, it is immoral, and we have to do better for the people that we represent.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentlelady for her leadership and her indefatigable pursuit of this cause and the focus of not just this caucus but the country on the issue of poverty and of the poor. Fifty years ago today, President Lyndon Johnson stood right behind where I stand now and urged the Congress to join him in working to end poverty in the United States. He said to this body: We have in 1964 a unique opportunity and obligation--to prove the success of our system; to disprove those cynics at home and abroad who question our purpose and our competence. If we fail, if we fritter and fumble away our opportunity in needless, senseless quarrels between Democrats and Republicans, or between the House and Senate, or between Congress and the administration, then history will judge us harshly. But if we succeed, if we can achieve these goals by forging in this country a greater sense of union, then and only then can we take full satisfaction in the State of the Union. That opportunity and obligation to prove we can work together, and to do everything we can to end poverty in America, remains with us in 2014. And right now, we are failing that solemn obligation to the American people. For decades, slowly but surely our efforts in fighting poverty have been making a difference. If you include the social safety net that President Johnson and later generations helped to construct, the poverty rate fell from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent in 2012. This was achieved because, in the past, we have always worked to ensure that a rising tide lifts all boats, that the gains of prosperity are felt broadly, and that in tough times, Americans who fall behind have a chance to get back on their feet. But recently, we have seen this House majority choose to break this long-standing compact, to turn their backs on the most vulnerable Americans. Consider what they are trying to do to food stamps, our most important anti-hunger program. Food stamps help to feed over 47 million Americans, nearly half of whom are children. For decades, Republicans and Democrats have worked together to pass a farm bill that does right by struggling Americans, even while working to support our farmers. But even though 99 percent of food stamp recipients live below the poverty line, this majority severed food stamps from the farm bill. They tried to cut food stamps by $40 billion, meaning 4 million Americans would be denied food. Even the final conference bill will reportedly cut roughly $8.5 billion from the program and deny critical food aid to over 800,000 households. Cutting this aid means kids can no longer concentrate in school because they are quite literally starving. It means seniors getting sick and going to the hospital because they can no longer afford proper nourishment. To take another example, look at what is happening with unemployment insurance. In the past, as far back as the Eisenhower administration, Congress has worked to extend unemployment benefits when the jobless rate was in the 5-7 percent range. But last month, even though unemployment remains above 7 percent, this House majority refused to work to extend these important benefits. The benefits have expired. What that means is that 1.3 million American men and women have already lost their unemployment insurance, including 26,000 in my State of Connecticut. Many are people who had jobs. They lost them through no fault of their own, and who in this difficult economy, and even despite education, training, and job experience, still cannot find a job. Even as the stock market is at record levels, we are telling these Americans you are on your own. We are pulling up the ladder on them and closing the hatch. It is wrong. It is not what America is about. Slashing these programs will hurt and derail our economic recovery. Our top priority in this Congress should be to do everything that we can to create jobs, help workers, help families get back on their feet. That is the moral responsibility of good government. In the words of Pope Francis, we should all be ``working to eliminate the structural causes of poverty, to promote the integral development of the poor. This means education, access to health care, and above all employment.'' That is the great and the still unfinished cause that Lyndon Johnson dedicated us to 50 years ago. This Nation is watching. It is time for all of us to step up, work together and do the right thing. Again, I thank the gentlelady for your focus on this critical issue.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker. it is with my full support of the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act that I rise today at the request of First Selectman Kurt Miller, the Board of Selectmen, and the Town of Seymour to officially submit the following town resolution into the Congressional Record: Whereas, During the Vietnam War, the United States military sprayed 22 million gallons of Agent Orange and other herbicides over Vietnam to reduce forest cover and crops used by the enemy; these herbicides contained dioxin, which has since been identified as carcinogenic and has been linked with a number of serious and disabling illnesses affecting thousands of veterans; and Whereas, The United States Congress passed the Agent Orange Act of 1991, to address the plight of veterans exposed to herbicides while serving the Republic of Vietnam; the Act amended Title 38 of the United States Code to presumptively recognize as service-connected certain diseases among military personnel who served in Vietnam between 1962 and 1975; this presumption has provided access to appropriate disability compensation and medical care for Vietnam veterans diagnosed with such illnesses as Type II diabetes, Hodgkin's disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, prostate cancer, Parkinson's, multiple myeloma, peripheral neuropathy, AL Amyloidosis respiratory cancers, and soft tissue sarcomas and others yet to be identified; and Whereas, Pursuant to a 2001 directive, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs policy has denied the presumption of a service connection for herbicide-related illnesses to Vietnam veterans who cannot furnish written documentation that they had ``boots on the ground'' in- country, making it virtually impossible for countless United States Navy, Marine and Air Force veterans to pursue their claims for benefits; moreover, personnel who served on ships in the ``Blue Water Navy'' in Vietnamese territorial waters were, in fact, exposed to dangerous airborne toxins, which not only drifted offshore but washed into streams and rivers draining into the South China Seas; and Whereas, The United States Navy has been excluded ever since, Agent Orange has been verified, through various studies and reports, as a wide spreading chemical that was able to reach Navy Ships through the air and waterborne distribution routes; and Whereas, Warships positioned off the Vietnamese shore routinely distilled seawater to obtain potable water, a 2002 Australian study found that the distillation process, rather than removing toxins, in fact concentrated dioxin in water used for drinking, cooking, and washing; this study was conducted by the Australian Department of Veterans Affairs after it found that Vietnam veterans of the Royal Australian Navy had a higher rate of mortality from Agent Orange- associated diseases than did Vietnam veterans from other branches of the military; when the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied specific cancers among Vietnam veterans, it found a higher risk of cancer among United States Navy veterans; and Whereas, Herbicides containing TCDD did not discriminate between soldiers on the ground and sailors on ships offshore, and Whereas, More than 30 Veterans Service Organizations support the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2013; by not passing H.R. 543, a precedent could be set to selectively provide certain groups with injury-related medical care while denying other groups without any financial, scientific or consistent reasoning, and Whereas, When the Agent Orange Act passed in 1991 with no dissenting votes, congressional leaders stressed the importance of responding to the health concerns of Vietnam veterans and ending the bitterness and anxiety that had surrounded the issue of herbicide exposure, the federal government has also demonstrated its awareness of the hazards of Agent Orange exposure through its involvement in the identification, containment, and mitigation of dioxin ``hot spots'' in Vietnam; and Whereas, The United States Congress should reaffirm the nation's commitment to the well-being of all of its veterans and direct the United States Department of Veterans Affairs to administer the Agent Orange Act under the presumption that herbicide exposure in the Republic of Vietnam includes the country's inland waterways, offshore waters, and airspace; similarly, now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Town of Seymour hereby respectfully urge the Congress of the United States to restore the presumption of a service connection for Agent Orange exposure to United States Veterans who served on the inland waterways, in the territorial waters, and in the airspace over the combat zone.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor for me to have the opportunity to rise and recognize the accomplishments of those I so proudly represent. Today, however, is particularly special as I stand to pay tribute to my mother, Luisa DeLauro, who will celebrate her 100th birthday this December 24. She is--by any definition--an extraordinary woman, whose passion for family and civic service made all the difference in our lives and in our community. Born December 24, 1913, at 111 Wooster Street, my mother was one of six children. She grew up in the heart of New Haven's Italian American community and spent most of her childhood in my grandmother's pastry shop, Canestri's. It was in the Wooster Square neighborhood that my mother learned the importance of family, respect, and community. She married my father, Ted, in 1938 and they successfully balanced a life of family and community service. I have vivid memories of my parents sitting with neighbors at our kitchen table--particularly newly immigrated families--and my mother and father doing all they could to help them overcome whatever obstacle they were facing. My mother was no stranger to hard work. When I was growing up, she worked in a sweatshop, sewing shirt collars for pennies Every day she would make me come by after school to see the horrible, cramped conditions. It is something I will never forget. The lesson was clear: work hard. Make something of yourself. Get a good education. My mother was elected to the Board of Alderman in 1965--a position she held for 35 years and which stands today as the record for the longest serving member of that Board. In her time on the Board, she focused much of her attention on her childhood community--seeing Wooster Square designated as the City's first Historic District, initiating the annual Cherry Blossom Festival, and recognizing distinguished residents and organizations with the honorary naming of streets and corners--but she was also a fierce advocate, particularly for senior citizens and children. My mother knew the importance of helping people--she understood that politics was an avenue for change. She also understood that women had an obligation to participate in the political process. When I first ran for Congress in 1990, I found an article my mother wrote in the 10th ward Democratic newsletter in 1933, now 80 years ago. Serving as Secretary of the organization at the time, amazingly, she wrote: It is not my intention to be critical, rather my motive in writing this article is to encourage the female members of this organization to take a more active part in its affairs. We are not living in the middle ages when a woman's part in life was merely to serve her master in her home, but we have gradually taken our place in every phase of human endeavor, and even in the here-to-for stronghold of the male sex: politics. I have noticed that the girls, unlike the men, are timid in asserting themselves, and many a good idea is lost, having been suppressed by its creator. Come on girls, let's make ourselves heard. And so, mom, I want to take this opportunity to say, ``You made yourself heard.'' You continue to make us all proud. Thank you and congratulations on your centennial anniversary. You are your daughter's greatest inspiration.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to extend my deepest thanks and appreciation to the Motor Transport Association of Connecticut for their many efforts to combat human trafficking, including their most recent action in honoring Kendis Paris and ``Truckers Against Trafficking'' with their highest honor, the ``Good Buddy Award.'' As you know, each year hundreds of thousands of women and children are abducted and forced into prostitution and enslaved under some of the most abusive of circumstances. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has identified truck stops and rest areas as places where these abductions can occur. The Motor Transportation Association of Connecticut (MTAC), an organization dedicated to promoting the interests of Connecticut's trucking industry, has taken a leadership role in the national effort to combat this terrible epidemic. Truckers are the eyes and ears of our nation's highways--indeed just this past July, in one weekend, with the help of truckers and others, more than 100 teenagers were rescued. The leadership and members of MTAC have taken a special interest in this cause, making it a top priority. At their most recent annual meeting, MTAC demonstrated their commitment to this effort by recognizing ``Truckers Against Trafficking,'' a national non-profit organization that exists to educate, equip, empower and mobilize members of the trucking and travel plaza industry to combat domestic sex trafficking, and its co-founder, Kendis Paris, with their 2013 Good Buddy Award--a demonstration of the high level of esteem that MTAC holds for both the program and Kendis. I am proud to say that, in addition to these actions, MTAC has been working with me to develop a legislative agenda focused on combatting human trafficking. Human trafficking is a rampant issue that is impacting the lives of millions across the world, hundreds of thousands in our nation alone. I applaud the Motor Transport Association of Connecticut, Truckers Against Trafficking, and Kendis Paris for their remarkable work in combating this appalling practice. I look forward to continuing to work with them and to someday realize the goal we all share--to ensure that every woman and child is protected from such a dreadful fate.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called Kids First Research Act, which despite its name does absolutely nothing to support kids or pediatric research. This bill does not include a single additional dollar for pediatric research. It just ends another program. It merely suggests this money should be used to fund NIH if, and only if, a later appropriations bill calls for it. The money does not automatically go for pediatric research. This is a feel-good messaging bill that plays a bait-and-switch on American families hoping and praying for research dollars to save their children. This majority wants to pretend that they are supporting medical research when, in fact, they have continually cut this fundamental priority since 2011. Consider the very first bill passed in this House in 2011, H.R. 1. That bill was supported by all but three Republicans. Almost every single Member of this majority voted to cut $1.6 billion from the National Institutes of Health. Most of those who have spoken this morning were those who voted to make that cut. That cut is 100 times larger than the $12.6 million increase that this legislation pretends to provide. Because of the deep and reckless sequestration cuts, NIH has been cut by $1.5 billion more. We don't know whether the budget deal that is being discussed today will put that money back. Because of these misguided policies, the National Cancer Institute has been slashed by $255 million and the Child Health Institute by $66 million.

Ms. DeLAURO. I strongly support investing in medical research. My heart goes out to the Miller family. I am a cancer survivor. One of my proudest accomplishments in this body is working in a bipartisan fashion to double the NIH budget between 1998 and 2003. We did it then, and it is something that we need to do again; but this bill, this bill is a sham. If the majority believes, as I do, that we should increase funding for pediatric research, then let us increase funding for pediatric research. Let us not waste time playing games and misleading the American people. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. The food issue is supreme, and this usually stays under the radar. We are bringing it to the fore.

Ms. DeLAURO. I think it is important to note that there is bipartisan support in opposition to a fast track authority unless it gets changed to include congressional input, as well as bipartisan support in opposition to this trade agreement for what it does, because people being hurt don't have a party label. The minimum wage, the drop in the minimum wage, affects Democrats, Republicans, Independents. I don't care where you are and who you are, it is affecting your life and the life of your family. So I thank the gentleman again and look forward to our continuing efforts.

Ms. DeLAURO. I want to say thank you to my colleague from Wisconsin and thank you for all of your efforts and what you have been doing. It is an honor for me to serve with you. At the heart of soul of what your interests are all about is what that chart reflects. It is about people who are making the minimum wage. What is their life about? What are we doing in terms of the policies that we create in this institution, which is an institution which historically has been about providing opportunity? A drop in the minimum wage is not an opportunity for future success. Your characterization of the Trans-Pacific Partnership in creating this kind of an effort is absolutely on target. In terms of this agreement, next week, as you know, the trade ministers from 12 nations are going to meet in Singapore. As U.S. trade negotiators continue to push for this partnership, the TPP agreement, they want to push to move it so that we can do something by the end of this year. You made a point before that this could have been a new opportunity. It represented an effort to create something that was new, a sustainable model that promoted economic development with shared prosperity. But, as you know, unfortunately the talks have gone down the same road as previous trade agreements: export of more jobs, not more goods; unsafe imports; and threats to the public health, among other things. You made that clear. The country lost more than 5 million manufacturing jobs, millions of service sector jobs since the North American Free Trade Agreement, which I will tell my colleague that I was proud to vote against when that came before this body, and the World Trade Organization. Both of those went into effect, and we have seen the loss of more than 5 million jobs. Again, your point is well stated. Wages in the United States have decreased and economic inequality is something that is talked about a lot today. It is not an abstract concept. It is not an abstract construct. It is the result of public policy that has fostered economic inequality in the United States, and that has increased as a result of these past trade agreements. The recent trade agreement with Korea reinforced why we cannot continue to do more of the same. In its first year, U.S. exports to Korea dropped 10 percent as imports from Korea increased. The trade deficit with Korea exploded by 37 percent in just 1 year, which equates to a net loss of approximately 40,000 more U.S. jobs. Why in an economy that is so difficult for people today are we embarking on public policy initiatives that increase lost jobs, lost wages, more economic uncertainty, and insecurity for families in the United States? It is wrongheaded. There is no reason to believe that the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal will not be the same kind of a raw deal for U.S. workers and more as this agreement would be unprecedented in scope. The President himself has commented that the pact would establish rules that extend far beyond traditional trade matters to include ``a whole range of new trade issues that are going to be coming up in the future: innovation, regulatory convergence, how we are thinking about the Internet and intellectual property.'' The agreement will create binding policies on future Congresses in numerous areas to include those that are related to labor, patent and copyright, land use, food, agriculture and product standards, natural resources, the environment, state-owned enterprises, and government procurement policies, as well as financial, health care, energy, telecommunications, and other service sector regulations. This is a treaty that goes beyond tariffs. The scope is, as I have outlined, unbelievable. We also know that the lack of transparency on this treaty is unbelievable. It is interesting to note that industry has had great access to the process and what is going on. Members of Congress, both sides of the aisle, have not had that same access to the information in this trade agreement, and it is our constitutional authority as Members of Congress to approve trade agreements. We cannot be frozen out any longer. We are not going to tolerate that. We know, for example, that the agreement will likely lead to increases in U.S. imports of shrimp and other seafood from Vietnam and Malaysia. Here is something I believe my colleague knows but others need to know: In 2012, imported seafood products from Vietnam were refused entry 206 times because of contamination concerns while some exporters in Malaysia have acted as a conduit to transit Chinese shrimp to the United States in order to circumvent both FDA import alerts and antidumping duties. When I said they had been stopped, why have they been stopped? Filthy product, contaminated product, antibiotic-laced product putting in jeopardy the public health of people in the United States. And rather than improving food safety enforcement and regulations in partner nations, the agreement may lead to a drain of resources needed to ensure that food safety at agencies like the FDA are called in to resolve these disputes with other countries. The agreement may even undermine critical U.S. food safety regulations. We also know from the recently leaked text that U.S. trade negotiators--I say ``recently leaked'' because we don't have access to the information. We are not able to come in and have people lay it out for us. We now know from the leaked text that U.S. trade negotiators are proposing unbalanced intellectual property provisions that are going to hinder our trading partners' access to safe and more affordable drugs. This is not only going to raise the price of medicines overseas, preventing millions from getting the medical care that they need, but it limits the ability of United States companies exporting these drugs to grow internationally and to generate more jobs at home. Incredibly, even as the administration is proposing to lower drug costs for consumers here in the United States by proposing in its budget to modify the length of exclusivity on brand name biologics from 12 to 7 years, our trade negotiators are demanding 12 years of data exclusivity from our trading partners, denying their people quicker access to more affordable drugs. How can the United States be in that business? It is morally unacceptable that people overseas will have less access to lifesaving drugs. That is not who we are as a Nation. That is not where our values lie. These and other critical areas are being negotiated without sufficient congressional consultation, even though, as I mentioned, under the Constitution, the Congress, not the Executive, has the exclusive constitutional authority to ``regulate commerce with foreign nations'' and write the Nation's laws. Over the last few decades, Presidents have increasingly taken over both of those powers through a mechanism known as ``fast track.'' What it does is erode Congress' ability to shape the content of the free trade agreement, which today, as I said again earlier, clearly goes well beyond tariff issues of the shaping of the trade agreement, but it then becomes--if you provide for fast track authority, then that means it comes to this body. My colleague from Wisconsin knows this. He served in legislative bodies. We will have no ability to amend, and you just come and you rubber- stamp it. No more. No more. Under the recent iteration of fast track--which expired, by the way, in 2007--U.S. trade negotiations required various stages of congressional consultation before and during the negotiations. But even that minimal level of congressional consultation has not occurred with regard to the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty, which is why myself and so many of my other colleagues from both sides of the aisle, including my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), have made it clear that the 20th century fast track and its lack of any meaningful input from Congress in the formative stages of an agreement is not appropriate for the 21st century trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. More fast track is a nonstarter. What we need to do is to create a 21st century mechanism to negotiate approved trade agreements that ensure that they benefit more Americans. Don't decrease their wages. Don't decrease the minimum wage. Give them a fighting chance to help themselves and their families. We cannot approve a Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that continues to follow the same failed trade template that has hurt working families for so long, that jeopardizes our public health here and abroad, and that creates binding policies on future Congresses that we had no input in creating. If we are to uphold the trust of our constituents, for them, for this economy, for our country, we need to do better, and the content and the process of the Trans-Pacific Partnership does not allow us to do better by our constituents or the great people of the United States. This is a treaty that needs to be restarted. Instead of being brought up and finished by the end of the year, we need to restart the effort, have congressional input, and do something that will help to make a difference in the lives of the people that we serve. I thank the gentleman for having this Special Order to focus on this issue. I know that he will, as I will, continue to try to make clear to the public what we are talking about, what is in this legislation, which is not going to benefit themselves and their families. That is something that I know that you are committed to and I am committed to, as well. And we are going to continue this battle. As far as I am concerned--I won't speak for you--we are not going to make that end-of-the-year treaty. There are going to be many roadblocks before that occurs. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to participate in this Special Order tonight.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, 27 years ago, I was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. I was lucky. I had excellent doctors who detected the cancer by chance in stage 1. I underwent radiation treatment for 2\1/2\ months. Because of the grace of God and biomedical research, I stand here today, and I am fortunate to say that I have been cancer free ever since. I can tell you for a fact that access to preventive health care saved my life. If my ovarian cancer had not been diagnosed and caught in stage 1, I might not be here today, but many women are not so lucky as over 15,000 die every year from ovarian cancer. While I survived by that off chance of luck in that diagnosis, no one should have to survive by luck, which is why my Democratic colleagues and I worked hard. We worked very hard to make sure that prevention and wellness are such a critical part of the Affordable Care Act. Before we passed this transformative piece of legislation, one in five women over age 50 had not had a mammogram in the past 2 years, mostly because she could not afford one. Now mammograms are covered--they are covered for all Americans--with no out-of-pocket costs. So are annual checkups, colonoscopies, diabetes, and other cancer screenings--at no cost. Let me repeat that. They are the beneficiaries of lifesaving treatments. Preventive care not only helps to keep Americans healthier; it also helps to drive down the cost of health care so that people can get access to the services that they need. Chronic and often preventable diseases, such as heart disease and diabetes, cause seven out of 10 deaths in the United States of America, and they account for 75 percent of our health spending. Preventive care can help Americans avoid these ailments or to catch them before it is too late. That is what the Affordable Care Act does. That is what the people of this country need to know. There are countless stories, after stories, after stories of people's lives being saved because they have the opportunity to get a treatment or something that says you may be at risk for a particular disease, and you can get that identification not by luck but as a routine checkup. No one in the United States of America should survive by luck. Now we have an opportunity through the Affordable Care Act, which is the law of the land today, to make sure that everyone--man and woman--can get those services. If you expand access to preventive health, it drives the costs down, but most importantly, it saves lives. Isn't that worth doing, to be able to save someone's life? That is what the Affordable Care Act is all about. It is just one of the many ways that it is good for men, for women, for families in this Nation, and it is good for America to move in this direction.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed rollcall vote No. 614 on approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed rollcall vote No. 612, regarding the ``Space Launch Liability Indemnification Extension Act'' (H.R. 3547). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed rollcall vote No. 613 ``To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to exempt fire hydrants from the prohibition on the use of lead pipes, fittings, fixtures, solder, and flux.'' (H.R. 3588). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, next week we celebrate Thanksgiving, a holiday in which we express our gratitude for all that life in this land has given us. We celebrate our good fortune with family, friends, and foods. One of the most iconic portrayals of this day is Norman Rockwell's 1941 painting, ``Freedom from Want,'' which shows a large family seated around a dinner table waiting to carve up a turkey. This painting was created to depict what Franklin Roosevelt called one of the ``four essential human freedoms,'' the freedoms that millions of Americans would fight and die to protect in World War II. Roosevelt reminded us as Americans that ``we cannot be content . . . if some fraction of our people, whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth, is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.'' Instead, ``after this war is won, we must be prepared to move forward . . . to new goals of human happiness and well-being.'' Mr. Speaker, we are moving in the wrong direction. Right now in America, 49 million Americans, one out of every seven households in our country, are struggling with hunger, including 16 million kids. At this time of great need, this body proposes to cut $40 billion from food stamps, forcing 4 million low-income Americans to go hungry. It is immoral.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you another letter I received from a constituent about the Affordable Care Act. He writes: About 9 months ago, my wife was forced to leave her job, in part because they wanted her to travel to Boston twice a week and the responsibilities to care for our daughter who has cerebral palsy made that impossible. Our health insurance was from her employment. We went on to COBRA, which cost about $1,400 per month. Waiting to have permanent insurance that did not have a termination date, we contacted Anthem Blue Cross for a quote for private insurance. We were told that my wife was uninsurable for 10 years because she had been treated for depression a few years ago when our daughter was diagnosed with cerebral palsy and we were told she would require spinal cord surgery to possibly walk. They then said, because of her condition, the cost for only my daughter and I was almost $4,000 per month. The burden for the last 6 months was overwhelming. Insurance brokers informed us that only the Affordable Health Care Act could help us. Yesterday my wife signed up for health insurance for all of us. Due to our income, we do not qualify for assistance and we were never looking for any. All we wanted was affordable insurance for my family. The policy we selected will end up costing about what our COBRA payment is, $1,400, depending on how much deductible we end up using, which is all we ever wanted. I know the only reason our family is safe is because of the President, who cares more about people like us than the CEO of Anthem Blue Cross or Aetna. Mr. Speaker, I receive calls and letters like this all the time. It is why I worked so hard to pass the Affordable Care Act in the first place. This is a transformative piece of legislation, a law that provides more security for the middle class and a better, healthy quality of life for the entire community. It empowers patients and doctors again and puts them, and not insurers, back at the center of care. It makes important, long-overdue reforms that most people just take as common sense. But for 3 years now, this House Republican majority has been trying to roll the clock back and bring back the bad old days when insurance companies could discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, even children with preexisting conditions, once again. They want to see women pay more for the same coverage than men, be denied coverage because they survived breast cancer, were a victim of domestic violence, or had a child by cesarean section. They want to see small businesses lose tax credits and seniors' health care and drug costs continue to rise at staggering rates. But we are not going to go back. The Affordable Care Act is already making a profound difference for individuals and families in need. It is time to stop with the partisan political games and let it work for families who desperately need to have health care coverage and insurance that they can't afford.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, since this Republican majority took office, we have taken vote after vote after vote intended to disrupt, delay, defund, or outright repeal the Affordable Care Act. Last month, this House majority shut down the Federal Government. They threatened a catastrophic debt default in order to gut this law. Now, when the Affordable Care Act is going into effect, are we supposed to believe that this Republican majority is putting forth a good-faith effort to improve the bill? It doesn't wash, and it defies imagination. This bill is designed to weaken the health care law to roll back the clock on the reforms we worked so hard to pass. It takes us back to the unacceptable state of our health care system before we passed the Affordable Care Act. Remember, the health care system was failing people. Every year health care costs skyrocketed, small businesses priced out of the market, employers asking for higher contributions in co-pays and dropping coverage, people with preexisting conditions being socked or left on their own. Every year more people had no insurance whatsoever. This bill allows insurers to continue to provide substandard health insurance plans to families, even to new customers. Americans on these plans will be denied access to preventive services with no out-of- pocket costs. It takes us back to a time when people were not guaranteed coverage for maternity, pediatric care, hospitalizations, where families faced annual caps, lifetime caps. It takes us back to a health insurance market that rejects people with preexisting conditions. Once again, this Republican majority is trying to put insurers back in the driver's seat, let them control the health of American families. This majority was never interested in reforming our broken health care system. They have never been interested in the Affordable Care Act, and now they are not interested as well. This is a cynical, transparently political bill. Oppose it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to share a letter I received from a constituent of mine named Mary Ann from Milford, Connecticut. She is suffering from cancer, and she wrote to me during the recent Republican government shutdown. She wrote: I'm attaching a picture I snapped of the statement I received from my insurance company regarding my chemotherapy treatment of the month of July, which was one treatment. Over $110,000. I'm grateful I have insurance right now, but it's COBRA. It is expensive, and it runs out in 18 months. If the Affordable Care Act is not in place in 18 months, I will never be able to get insurance or treatment. This is real for me. It is life or death for me, and I am grateful that President Obama is not willing to negotiate with my life as this Nation is held hostage by political terrorists. Mr. Speaker, I receive calls and letters like this every single week. The Affordable Care Act is already making a profound difference for individuals and their families. Those on the other side of the aisle who talk about it is not necessary, they have health insurance. They have it. Why is it that this body goes on to say ``no'' to health insurance for millions of Americans who are out there? This body needs to stop partisan political games and let the Affordable Care Act work for families. It is a matter of life or death.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Even if the food stamp recipient, including parents with young children and those with disabilities, is actively searching for a job, the House majority would end their benefits. This is immoral. It goes against the values that we hold dear in the United States of America. Cutting 4 million Americans who live on the edge while providing subsidies for the wealthiest is wrong, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose the cruelty that this rule embodies.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this rule and the $40 billion in disastrous cuts to the food stamp program that the House Republican majority is trying to make law. This is a cut of $40 billion from the food stamp program. It goes against decades of bipartisan support for the fight against hunger in the United States. It is a reflection of how extreme today's Republican Party has become. Even former Republican Senator Bob Dole has called these egregious cuts ``an about-face on our progress fighting hunger.'' If these cuts become law, over 4 million of the Nation's poorest citizens--children, seniors, veterans, and the disabled--would go hungry in the United States of America, the most bountiful Nation in the world. This is even as Republicans continue to give $90 billion in crop insurance subsidies to some of America's wealthiest families and agribusiness. For food stamp recipients that include a family of four, if their income is $23,000 or less, that would give them eligibility for food stamps. Let's talk about the Crop Insurance Program. You have got 26 beneficiaries of that program today who get at least a million dollars in a subsidy from U.S. taxpayers. They do not have any income threshold. They can get the money under any set of circumstances. And the top 1 percent of most farm operators in the Nation each get $220,000. You want to talk about the most needy? These are not the most needy. Cut out the $90 billion in the subsidies to the richest people in the Nation. The cuts are awful enough, but the majority's plan also includes cruel, mean-spirited restrictions. For instance, it encourages Governors to slash families from the food stamp rolls who cannot find work or a job training program for 20 hours a week. It rewards these Governors with half of the savings and allows them to use the money for tax cuts for the wealthy or whatever else they want.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct the conference committee to reauthorize America's nutrition and antihunger programs for 5 years. At the moment, the majority's farm bill extends crop insurance and other agricultural programs for 5 years, but the nutrition portion only reauthorizes food stamps and other programs for 3 years. This 2-year discrepancy would allow for all kinds of shenanigans the next time these programs are up for debate. We should stop that from happening now. When this majority severed the nutrition title from the farm bill, they broke a longstanding bipartisan compact on antihunger initiatives that goes back decades, connecting the programs that help farmers produce and the programs that help poor families escape hunger. This arrangement separates farm programs from nutrition programs on a permanent basis. They break the coalition that supports this bill. Quite honestly, it is being done to put food stamps at risk. Indeed, this is a shell game. The critical antihunger programs have been supported by Republicans and Democrats all across the country--the east coast, the west coast, the heartland--because hunger is not a partisan issue. We all have a vested interest in ending hunger in our country. But with this farm bill, the House Republican majority has betrayed this fight. By cruelly cutting $40 billion from food stamps, our most important antihunger program, they are telling over 4 million of our most vulnerable citizens--children, seniors, veterans, the disabled--you may not know where your next meal is coming from. The majority is making this $40 billion cut, robbing poor families of food, even while continuing to dole out over twice as much--$90 billion--in crop insurance subsidies, taxpayer dollars, to some of the Nation's wealthiest families and agribusiness. In the Crop Insurance Program, there are no income eligibility requirements. You can be a billionaire and still collect the subsidy. In the food stamp program, you can only make up to $23,000. With that, you can only spend almost $1.50 on a meal. That's the inequity we are talking about here. There should be a condemnation of what that House majority is trying to do to hunger and nutrition programs--and there is. It has been near universal. Nutrition, agriculture, homeless, seniors, education, and health care organizations--even Republican leaders like former Republican Senator Bob Dole--all have announced their opposition to this reckless and extreme plan.