Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join the many family, friends, and colleagues who have gathered to celebrate with Officer Carleton J. Giles as he marks the end of his distinguished career after thirty-three years of dedicated service with the Norwalk Department of Police Services. I am honored to have this opportunity to pay him tribute for both his service at the Department and in the community. I have had the honor of knowing and working with Carleton for many years. Over the course of his career, he has earned the respect and admiration of all those who have been fortunate enough to have worked with him. That is particularly true with the City of Norwalk's young people. Carleton was one of the first trained D.A.R.E. officers in the State of Connecticut and he has influenced the lives of nearly every 5th grade student in the City since the program's implementation in 1987. In addition to D.A.R.E., Carleton also taught Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) in each of the middle schools and also worked with high school students as a certified School Resource Officer. His leadership and commitment has served as a model not only for the students he has worked with but for his fellow police officers as well. Carleton has become a beloved fixture in the Norwalk community. Well known for his work with the Police Activities League Summer Camp as well as the Drug Education for Youth Summer Camp, he has provided support and guidance to some of the community's most vulnerable families. As an ordained clergyman, he served as a chaplain for both the Norwalk Fire Department as well as with the Police Department's chaplain corps--offering comfort and spiritual guidance in some of the most critical times and incidents in the lives of the departments and his fellow first responders. Carleton's passion for making a difference extends far beyond his work with the Department. An ordained minister with the First Baptist Church of Milford, he has nourished the souls of many with his spiritual guidance. He has served his community of Milford as the Chair of the Police Commission and running for elected office on the Board of Alderman. And I would be remiss if I did not extend a special note of thanks to him for his willingness to assist me as a member of my Service Academy Advisory Committee where he takes the time to interview students interested in attending our nation's military academies and advise me on recommendations for nominations. I cannot thank him enough for his many years of friendship and support. Police officer, minister, community activist, mentor, and friend-- Carleton Giles is a reflection of the compassion and generosity that we hope members of our community possess. His work with both the Norwalk Department of Police and in our communities has made all the difference in the lives of many. I am so proud to join all of those gathered here tonight in thanking him for his outstanding service and wishing him and his wife, Stephany, the very best for many more years of health and happiness as he enjoys his retirement.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, 119 years ago, in 1894, a study by the AAUW and the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor found that men were making more than twice as much as women for jobs like bookkeeping. Forty-eight years later, as millions of women like my mother entered the factories to help fight World War II, the War Labor Board issued General Order 16, declaring that men and women working the same job in the same factory should be paid the same wage. In 1945, the first Equal Pay Bill was introduced in the House by Chase Going Woodhouse, the second woman and first Democratic woman to be elected to the House from Connecticut. It was reintroduced every year for 18 years. President Dwight Eisenhower called it ``a matter of simple justice'' in his State of the Union. And 50 years ago this week--on June 10th, 1963--President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law. The Equal Pay Act was supposed to end, and I quote, ``the unconscionable practice of paying female employees less wages than male employees for the same job.'' But fifty years later, women are still paid only 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. It has been 50 years since the Equal Pay Act, and 120 years since we first studied pay inequity. Haven't America's women waited long enough? It is time to come together, give the Equal Pay Act real teeth, It is time to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act so that men and women in the same job--get the same pay. It is that simple.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. No more games. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this disastrous funding level. Let's work together to fix the sequester and get us back on the path to economic growth. This is our top priority. It must be our top priority. And this House of Representatives needs to show the American people that it can lead.

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to this rule, which aims to approve the House majority's inadequate appropriations allocation level for 2014, a level that is over $90 billion below that of the Senate and the President and violates the agreement that we all voted on a year ago, Democrats and Republicans, in the Budget Control Act to increase that funding above the number that they present to us today. The budget reflects our values, reflects our priorities, and our responsibilities to the people that we represent. It is our job to make sure that that is the case. And yet for the third time in 3 years, this House majority has put forward a reckless and ideological funding level that ensures that our government cannot even meet its most basic responsibilities to the American people. Under this House majority's plan, we will see cuts that are deeper than the indiscriminate across-the-board cuts. The funding for the Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services is drastically cut. And this rule accepts those cuts made to the program this year and then it multiplies that by four in 2014. What are those cuts? Where do they fall? And if enacted, the wrong choices will cause incalculable damage. They severely weaken these critical programs that protect public health and safety, that promote and develop our workforce, training programs, education, Pell Grants, Meals on Wheels, special education, and biomedical research so that people can live. It affects our seniors, our veterans, our middle class, and our most vulnerable families. I, along with Congressman Van Hollen and others, have offered legislation that cuts $30 billion from the Federal deficit and replaces the deep and indiscriminate cuts for the next 2 years with a more balanced and a targeted approach. That's the direction we should be moving in--keeping up with our fundamental responsibilities to the families who have elected us to stand up for them. Rather than going down this path, the House majority should appoint budget conferees and do its job and negotiate with the Senate. Our appropriations chairman claims to want to undo sequestration. Yet rather than showing leadership, the House majority fails to address the sequester and create conditions for another budget crisis down the road. We hear so much talk from this majority about regular order. What does that mean? The House passes a bill, the Senate passes bill, they work out their differences, they get it to the President, and the President signs the bill. Well, Mr. Speaker, where is the regular order? It is autocracy.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to this bill. Why? It increases the cost of student debt for millions of Americans just trying to continue their education. It is just another example of the House majority who would put a further burden on the middle class and working families. Without broad access to a good college education and the opportunities and the social mobility that it provides, there will be no middle class in America. The compact will be broken that allows hard work to pay off and allows future generations to do better. The costs of college are high today. Over the last 30 years, the average tuition at a 4-year State university has almost quadrupled. Sixty percent of Americans now borrow money for college. Student loan debt last year passed the trillion dollar mark. The average student loan debt among graduating seniors is over $26,000, a heavy burden to carry into a tough job market. This bill would compound those costs. A student with that level of debt would pay over $5,300 more in interest than they would if the current interest rates were extended, leaving them at 3.4 percent. But this is characteristic of the Republican majority. Let me just give you an example and what they view about the opportunity for education. In the last election, their standard bearer, Mitt Romney, when he was asked the question about increasing the student loan interest rate, this is what he replied. He said that if students need to borrow money, let them go to their parents. Well, if your father is the head of American Motors, then, in fact, you can go and get a loan from your parents. But if they are not, and what struggling parents are doing today, if their jobs have either gone or their wages are down, or their health benefits are gone, or their home may be underwater on the mortgage because of the crushing recession that we have had, they're telling their children that they can't afford to send them to college. They can't go to their parents for a loan. That's where my Republican colleagues would take this issue. And instead of us, here, adding further to students' debt, we should work harder to make college more affordable for families. Let us not let those interest rates double this summer. This bill moves us in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed rollcall vote No. 157 regarding the Hurt Amendment No. 2 to the ``SEC Regulatory Accountability Act'' (H.R. 1062). Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record in opposition of a sham bill that, in fact, takes money away from men and women, particularly from women, and that is in no way a way to ensure the economic security of women in this Nation.

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to the bill before us. It aims to end overtime pay, bring to an end the 40-hour workweek. This is another attempt by the House majority to accelerate a race to the bottom, strip workers of basic rights and protections, and undermine the foundations of the American middle class. The Working Families Flexibility Act does exactly the opposite of what it describes. There is no flexibility. The legislation guts the 75-year-old statute guaranteeing overtime pay for work over a 40-hour workweek, overtime pay that those single moms need. Hardworking American families, they rely on it. It allows employers, if they so choose, to provide comp time for all of this extra work, except there are no guarantees that workers can take the time when they need it, and there are no avenues for workers to file grievances if employers do not comply. This bill forces employees to work extra hours without overtime pay and get nothing in return. Yes, we need serious economic solutions to the problems that families are facing. Wages have stagnated for decades. Forty percent of Americans make less today than what the minimum wage was worth in 1968. And in America today, unlike in every other competitive economy in the world, 42 million workers cannot take off time when they are sick, when they need to care for a sick child or an ailing relative. We need legislation that provides employees with paid time off if they need it. The Healthy Families Act would allow workers up to seven job-protected paid sick days for each year. It builds on and reflects pro-family policies that have been passed in Connecticut; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; San Francisco; Washington, D.C. This majority has said ``no'' to an airing of this legislation. They want to eliminate worker protections and further undermine workers' paychecks and benefits. And America's families, they sent us here to represent their interests and address their needs, not to further erode their economic instability. Vote against this bill. Support paid leave, minimum wage, and pay equity if you want to help Americans families.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the previous question. Defeat of the previous question will allow the gentleman from Colorado to amend the rule to provide for consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act, an act that addresses the persistent problem of unequal pay in our economy and would help to make the bill before us a real boon for workers and families. Today, women are now half of the Nation's workforce. They are still only being paid 77 cents on the dollar as compared to men. And this holds true across all occupations and education levels. And for women of color, the disparities are even worse. Let's take this body, the U.S. Congress, the House of Representatives. We come from all over the country. We have different educational backgrounds. We have different skill sets and different philosophies. And yet, while we are all men and women here, we get paid the same amount of money. That is not true for most women in the United States of America. The only other institution in which there is same job, same pay, men and women, is in the U.S. military Less pay for women means less pay for the entire family at a time when millions are struggling to enter the middle class, give their children a chance at a better life, and achieve the American Dream. That's what paycheck fairness is all about: men, women, same job, same pay. Fifty years ago, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act to confront this ``serious and endemic'' problem of unequal wages in America. President John F. Kennedy signed it into law to end ``the unconscionable practice of paying female employees less wages than male employees for the same job.'' Fifty years later, it is clear that we have more to do. If this majority really wants to show good faith towards workers and their families and women in this Nation, then what they will do is they will join us, and they will take the steps that are necessary to end unequal pay, put an end to pay secrecy, strengthen a worker's ability to challenge discrimination, and bring equal-pay law into line with other civil rights laws. What they will do is they will abandon the legislation that will gut the 40-hour workweek and that will allow employers to cut employees' overtime pay in order to save money. America's women and America's families have waited far too long for this institution to act. They're watching us now, and I urge this majority to do right by them at last and help us to end unequal pay for women in this Nation for good.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and much appreciation that I rise today to join my hometown of New Haven, Connecticut in commemoration of the City's 375th Anniversary--a remarkable milestone for a very special community. Today, hundreds are gathered not only to pay tribute to our past but to celebrate the unique blend of cultures, traditions, and history that has made our City so strong. The story of New Haven is the story of America. It was on April 24, 1638, that a group of five hundred English Puritans, led by Reverend John Davenport and Theophilus Eaton and in search of a place where ``the word of God shall be the only rule,'' sailed into the harbor. Upon their arrival they soon met with a local Native American tribe, the Quinnpiack, whose leader, Momauguin, agreed to sell the tribe's land in exchange for the settlers' protection from neighboring raiding bands and the use of the lands east of the harbor. In just two short years a government had been established and the settlement, based on a grid of nine squares with the central square as the public common or Green, was flourishing. In 1784, New Haven was incorporated as a city and Roger Sherman, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was elected its first mayor. The history of New Haven is in fact a reflection of our nation's great history. It was in New Haven in 1775, the day after Lexington and Concord, or as we call it Powder House Day, that Benedict Arnold demanded the keys to the local powder house so that patriots could use it in defense of the colonies. It was in New Haven, that Eli Whitney developed the cotton gin and interchangeable parts revolutionizing the manufacturing industry and revitalizing the American economy. It was in New Haven that a group of African Mendi Warriors, led by Cinque Pieh and marooned aboard the Spanish schooner Amistad, won a court battle and were able to return to their homeland--an important triumph of the anti-slavery movement. In the 19th century, New Haven was the center of the carriage industry as well as the oyster capitol of the world. New Haven is home to the prestigious Yale University--an institution that has educated three of our last four presidents and three of our current Supreme Court justices. New Haven, like so many other communities across our nation, also has a rich immigrant story--the story of the American dream. Our City may be most well known for its Italian and fish communities, but we have also become home to a number of other immigrant groups including those from Eastern Europe and Ecuador. As is the same story in so many other communities, these immigrant groups faced all kinds of challenges and obstacles. Through those struggles they stuck together, they established organizations to help re-create a little bit of the Old Country, and to honor the values of family and community we all hold dear--they made New Haven their home. With such a rich history, the bonds of our community are strong. Born and raised in the Wooster Square neighborhood, wherever I go in this world, it is always with me. That is New Haven--and that is why I am so proud to rise today to say Happy 375th Birthday New Haven.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join the many family, friends, colleagues, and community leaders who have gathered in celebration of an outstanding member of our community and my dear friend, Fred Acquavita, as he retires from his post as Headmaster of St. Thomas Day School in New Haven, Connecticut after more than three decades of service in education. A native of New Haven, Fred left Connecticut to attend the Kansas State College of Pittsburg to earn his Bachelors Degree and later returned to earn his Masters from Southern Connecticut State University as well as his 6th Year from Bank Street College of Education. Fred began his career as a teacher in the New Haven Public School system working with children in elementary and secondary schools. Deeply passionate about education and making it work for both teachers and our young people, Fred focused his professional growth on building expertise in curriculum development, instructional support, strategic planning, and team building--all of which would serve him well as he accepted the leadership role at St. Thomas's Day School. As Headmaster of St. Thomas's Day School, Fred has helped to shape the lives of hundreds of young people--nourishing their minds, encouraging their imaginations, and preparing them well to meet their full potential and realize their dreams. Fred's dedication to enriching our community extends far beyond his work in education. Throughout his adult life he has dedicated much of his time to a myriad of local service organizations. He has served on the Board of Directors at Farnum Neighborhood House where he also coached ``Biddy Basketball,'' participated in the Graustein Foundation Leadership Program, and is currently an Associate Fellow Yale's Berkeley College as well as a member of the Board of Directors of the Connecticut Association of Independent Schools. On a more personal note, I want to take a moment to thank Fred for his many years of special friendship. His support and camaraderie is something that I will always cherish. Fred's passion for making a difference is an inspiration to many and I consider myself very fortunate to call him my friend. Teacher, administrator, advocate, and mentor, Fred is a reflection of all that we attribute to an outstanding public servant. His actions reflect his deep and abiding belief in the words of St. Francis of Assisi--we should all strive to ``make this a better world and let it begin with me.'' For his many invaluable contributions to both St. Thomas's Day School and our community, I am proud to stand today and extend my deepest thanks and appreciation to my good friend, Fred Acquavita, as he celebrates his retirement. I wish him as well as his wife, Marie; their children, John and Michael; and their three beautiful granddaughters the very best for many more years of health and happiness.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived bill. It aims to effectively shut down the National Labor Relations Board-- another direct attack by this House majority on workers' rights. As we have been debating, a D.C. court recently ruled that two of the Board's current appointments made during a recess within a congressional session are invalid, and therefore NLRB currently lacks a quorum. This ruling is at odds with three other court rulings on the same matter and, in fact, the court did not order the NLRB to stop performing its duties. Nevertheless, the majority is trying to use this one decision as a pretext to stop the Board from issuing any decisions or taking any other actions on behalf of workers. This is a transparent attempt to effectively shut down the NLRB. What we need to do here is have the Senate take up the five pending nominations and act quickly so that we can have a functioning NLRB. This one court decision is squarely at odds with longstanding practice. Presidents of both parties have routinely made recess appointments during intrasession recesses and without regard to when the vacancy first arose. The Congressional Research Service has identified a total of 329 intrasession recess appointments made since 1980. All of these would presumably be invalid under this court's decision, and that includes four such NLRB recess appointments by President Reagan and four by the second President Bush. Tell me, were these eight appointments by President Reagan and President Bush also in violation of the Constitution? If so, then why is this one particular court decision considered the ``right'' one despite the fact that all other courts and past practices disagree with it? The majority simply wants to prevent the NLRB from functioning so that workers who want to invoke their basic right to organize have no recourse. What recourse, for that matter, would employers have against actions by unions that violate labor laws, such as secondary boycotts or unlawful picketing? Under the terms of the National Labor Relations Act, its provisions can only be enforced through the NLRB. There is no provision in the act for private lawsuits.

Ms. DeLAURO. Without the NLRB, we simply do not have a fair workplace that works for everyone. This is another in an endless series of Republican attacks on the foundations of the American middle class. It aims to undermine worker protections and accelerate a race to the bottom. Let the NLRB do its work. I urge my colleagues to stand up for workers and employers and oppose this bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question. Defeat of the previous question will allow the gentleman from Colorado to amend the rule to provide for consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act, an act that addresses the persistent problem of unequal pay in our economy. It has now been 50 years since Congress passed the Equal Pay Act to confront the ``serious and endemic'' problem of unequal wages in America. President John F. Kennedy signed that bill into law to end ``the unconscionable practice of paying female employees less wages than male employees for the same job.'' But that practice persists today. Today, even though women are now half of the Nation's workforce, they are still only being paid 77 cents on the dollar as compared to men. This holds true across occupations and education levels. Don't let anyone fool you or tell you that if you hold constant for education and other areas that, in fact, there is no wage gap; it is just not true. A simple piece of legislation that says: men and women--same job, same pay. Those of us who serve in the Congress, men and women, all parts of the country, different education skills, different skill sets in general, we get paid the same amount of money. It's true in the military as well. This week, we once again recognize Equal Pay Day, the day in 2013 when a woman's earnings for 2012 catch up to what a man made last year. Unequal pay not only affects women; it affects families all across the country who are trying to pay their bills, trying to achieve the American Dream, and are getting less take-home pay than they deserve for their hard work. Everyone here agrees that women should be paid the same as men for the same work. That is what paycheck fairness is all about--same job, same pay. It is why President Obama called for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act in the State of the Union address in January.

Ms. DeLAURO. Because it is time for us to come together and take the next steps to stop pay discrimination--by putting an end to pay secrecy, strengthening workers' ability to challenge discrimination, and bringing equal pay law into line with other civil rights laws. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, support the Paycheck Fairness Act and unequal pay for good. Fifty years after the Equal Pay Act, it is finally time to give women the tools they need to ensure that they are paid what they deserve for the same day's work. What are we waiting for in this body?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would tell my colleague that, in fact, this body, under different leadership than this current majority, passed the paycheck fairness bill twice. It has to be done through the Congress; we have the ability to do it. I would suggest to my colleagues, who on the other side of the aisle would like to talk about pay equity for women, that they sign the discharge petition. We have 200 Members who are aboard. Let's get this bill out of the committee, onto the floor, vote for it as we did in the past, and send it to the Senate so that it could be passed there as well. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. It has now been 50 years since Congress passed the Equal Pay Act to confront the ``serious and endemic'' problem of unequal wages in America. At the time, when women were a third of the Nation's workforce, President John F. Kennedy said that this would help to end ``the unconscionable practice of paying female employees less wages than male employees for the same job.'' Today, women are now half of the Nation's workforce, but they are still only being paid 77 cents on the dollar as compared to men. And that is why today we're once again forced to recognize Equal Pay Day, the day in 2013 when a woman's earnings for 2012 catch up to what a man made last year. Unequal pay affects families all across our country. They're trying to pay their bills, trying to achieve the American Dream, and are getting less take-home pay than they deserve for their hard work. More steps are clearly needed to ensure that women are paid what they deserve. We need to pass legislation that will end pay secrecy and give women the tools to ensure that they are being compensated fairly. We need to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. Men, women, same job, same pay. Fifty years after this Congress first acted on the issue, it is time to end unequal pay. Make the dubious milestone of Equal Pay Day a thing of the past.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed rollcall vote number 79 on Ordering the Previous Question regarding the ``Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 25) Congressional Budget, 2014; providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 115) providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House Representatives in the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress; and for other purposes'' (H. Res 122). Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. I missed rollcall vote number 80 on Agreeing to the Resolution regarding the ``Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 25) Congressional Budget, 2014; providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 115) providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House Representatives in the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress; and for other purposes'' (H. Res 122). Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. I missed rollcall vote number 81 regarding the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''. I missed rollcall vote number 82 regarding the ``Providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress'' (H. Res. 115). Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed rollcall vote No. 83 regarding the ``Mulvaney of South Carolina Substitute Amendment No. 1'' (H. Con. Res. 25). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''. I missed rollcall vote No. 84 regarding the ``Scott of Virginia Substitute Amendment No. 2'' (H. Con. Res. 25). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''. I missed rollcall vote No. 85 regarding the ``Grijalva of Arizona Substitute Amendment No. 3'' (H. Con. Res. 25). Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. I missed rollcall vote No. 86 regarding the ``Woodall of Georgia Substitute Amendment No. 4'' (H. Con. Res. 25). Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution, which has only marginally improved since the last time we voted on it. This makes deep, permanent, indiscriminate, and harmful sequestration cuts that threaten our economic recovery. These are automatic across-the-board cuts. It hurts our economic recovery and the health and well-being and future of millions of American families. Both the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke have argued that the sequestration could cost us as many as 750,000 jobs. And that is not all. This resolution will make unnecessary cuts to vital programs that support families around the country. And these cuts will weigh heaviest on the people we should be helping the most to get back on their feet, the most vulnerable American families still struggling from the Great Recession. A vote against this resolution is not a vote for a government shutdown. Speaker Boehner has pledged on multiple occasions that he will not let the government shut down. You don't have to support this resolution and sequestration to avoid a shutdown. If you vote for this resolution, you are voting to undermine the Affordable Care Act by not providing funding to fully implement and ensure access to the health care marketplaces. You are voting to cut $400 million from Head Start. That means cutting early learning and development services from 70,000 children. You vote to cut $282 million from critical job training programs, cutting services from hundreds of thousands of unemployed and dislocated workers, veterans, and students. You vote to slash $730 million from Title I grants, cutting Federally funded education services from 2,500 schools and 1 million disadvantaged children. You vote to cut $580 million from special education grants, shifting the cost of educating 30,000 kids to the State and to local education agencies. You vote to cut more than $1.5 billion from the National Institutes of Health, slowing the pace of research and reducing the number of medical advances we make each year--advances that have the potential to save lives. You vote to cut $115 million from the Childcare Development Block Grant, further exacerbating the shortage of Federal child assistance by cutting services for 30,000 children. The list goes on. On top of deep cuts that have already become law, this resolution goes even deeper into every responsibility of good government--public health, research, safety, transportation, you name it. It also includes four egregious provisions related to firearms that would continue to blindfold law enforcement and hamper our ability to combat gun violence. This is not what the American people want from us. We need to pass a bill that creates jobs, grows the economy, and protects the middle class, seniors, and the most vulnerable. The resolution before us today does none of these things. You know, whenever we are drafting a budget or debating legislation in the House of Representatives, these are the principles that inform my work as a Member of the Congress. On Tuesday, in Rome, Pope Francis I asked ``all those who have positions of responsibility in economic, political, and social life'' to also ``be protectors.'' We need to be protectors. We need to continue to carry that vision of service with us and hope that all elected officials heed what the newly invested Pope has called for and work to ensure that our service is truly a service to others. We need to not put American families at risk. I urge my colleagues to oppose this continuing resolution.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the disastrous budget put forward by the House Majority. Once again, the Majority has put forward a plan that slashes deeply into our commonsense priorities and tries to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, women, and the most vulnerable. A budget is about more than just numbers--it is a reflection and embodiment of our values and priorities as a society. Our budget should advance our moral responsibilities as a nation to provide for the common good. I just attended the installation of Pope Francis in Rome, where he stressed the importance of working ``to protect all of God's people and embrace with tender affection the whole of humanity, especially the poorest, the weakest, the least important.'' But the budget before us, like the previous iterations composed by Chairman Ryan and supported by the House Majority, once again fails this critical moral test. In fact, it gets it exactly backwards. To pay for expanded tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, two-thirds of the nondefense cuts over ten years here come to programs that serve low- and moderate-income families. If this budget were to become law, the Economic Policy Institute estimates that two million jobs will be lost next year alone. That is not all. Millions of students would lose the access to college education that comes through Pell Grants. 190,000 children would lose access to Head Start. National Service programs like Americorps would be ended. Medicaid would be slashed by nearly a third, cutting families off from access to health care. Food Stamps by nearly 18 percent, with up to nine million people cut off from assistance they need so they do not go hungry. Both would be converted to an inadequate block grant. The health reforms we passed would all be rolled back meaning the donut hole will reopen, women would once again have to pay more for the same insurance as men, and children with preexisting conditions could lose their coverage. Seniors would have to pay more during retirement for health care. The Child Tax Credit would expire in 2017. And middle-class families would pay $2000 more a year in taxes, all to pay for a $200,000 tax cut for millionaires. The American people already roundly rejected this Reverse Robin Hood plan last November. Instead, they want us to use the budget as a vehicle to create jobs and grow the economy. I urge my colleagues to respect their wishes, and to vote against this latest iteration of the same old Republican budget.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today to join the many who have gathered in Connecticut's capitol to mark the 40th Anniversary of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women. Formed under Connecticut statute and charged with a mission to study and improve Connecticut women's economic security, health and safety; promote consideration of qualified women to leadership positions; and to work toward the elimination of gender discrimination, the PCSW is our state's leading force for women's equality. Women, in the workplace and in our society, have come a long way since the women's suffrage movement in the 19th century and the women's rights movement of the 20th century, during which time the PCSW was first established. Today, ninety-seven women serve in the two Houses of the United States Congress and thousands serve at the state and municipal levels as well. In fact, in Connecticut, women hold fifty- five seats in the General Assembly and half of the Constitutional offices. Women own their own businesses and are leading some of the largest corporations in the world. And yet women still face a myriad of obstacles in our society. Women still make seventy-seven cents to every dollar earned by a man in comparable positions and there is still a stigma attached to women in the workforce--employers still concerned about women who may have children or are thinking about starting a family and how those choices may impact their job performance or attendance. Women statistically live longer than men yet they have less retirement security, until very recently health research did not take into consideration the basic biological differences between men and women, and sexual harassment and discrimination continue to persist in a variety of forms. The PCSW, through policy research as well as education and awareness programs, has helped to shape the debate around these and many other issues impacting the lives of Connecticut women and create public policy that makes a difference. The PCSW has had a leadership role in advancing legislation in Connecticut to prohibit sex discrimination in credit transactions, create the first family and medical leave protections in the country, and require health insurance plans to cover a minimum of forty-eight hours hospital stay for normal childbirth and ninety-six for caesarian sections. Each of these efforts now stand as law in Connecticut and have acted as a model for legislation in other states as well as at the federal level. Under the outstanding leadership of Executive Director Teresa Younger, the PCSW is continuing in its strong tradition of ensuring that issues that impact women and their families are at the forefront of Connecticut's public policy discussions. I have spent much of my time in Congress focused on these issues and have often turned to the PCSW for guidance and support. It is with great pride and my deepest thanks that I rise today to congratulate them on their 40th Anniversary and wish them all the best for continued success.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you and all of my colleagues a letter I recently received from Sophie Boucher, a ninth grade student at Naugatuck High School in the Borough of Naugatuck, Connecticut. She writes: ``I think everyone in this state, country, continent, and world can agree that the events that unfolded in Newtown were tragic. Our hearts go out to the kids and teachers who lost their lives in Sandy Hook and also to their parents. We can do something to prevent this from happening again, though. I feel that one of the first issues we should address to restrain this from occurring again is gun control.'' ``We have all heard the saying, ``Guns don't kill people. People kill people.'' That may be true, but guns make it a whole heck of a lot easier. On the same day that Sandy Hook faced tragedy, 22 children in China were stabbed. Not one child was killed. If that man who stabbed these children had a gun, chances are the children would have been killed. We cannot just let anyone get their hands on guns, especially assault weapons. There should be stricter laws on who can obtain guns and who cannot.'' ``I feel that one of the ways to go about the stricter laws is by looking at a person's medical history before they obtain a gun. Furthermore, not only the medical history of the person wanting to own the gun should be looked at, but also the medical history of the people living in the house with them. If a mother has a gun in the house, a child, whether the child has mental health issues or not, could easily get their hands on it. We saw this example hold true with Adam Lanza. Though Adam Lanza's mental history was not known, it would have been a smart idea to keep all weapons of any kind away from him. By not having any kind of weapon around a person with a mental health issue, we will be able to decrease shootings of any kind. Therefore, the medical history of the person obtaining the gun and the people living with them should be looked at.'' ``Sincerely, Sophie Boucher, 9th Grader'' Like my colleagues, I always appreciate hearing from my constituents. I share this particular correspondence because it should serve us all as a reminder that there are many ways in which the Congress can act to address the issues surrounding gun violence--the point is we need to act.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on Monday, March 18, 2013 so I missed rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall vote No. 76 regarding the Journal vote, ``yes,'' on rollcall vote No. 77 regarding the ``Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service'' (H. Con. Res. 18), and on rollcall vote No. 78 regarding the ``Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby'' (H. Con. Res. 19), ``yes.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to this continuing resolution. It makes permanent, deep, indiscriminate, and harmful across-the-board cuts--cuts that will cost our country hundreds of thousands of jobs, and will hamstring our economic recovery. It will cost 750,000 jobs, according to the Congressional Budget Office and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. If you vote ``yes'': You vote for $400 million in cuts to Head Start--70,000 children will lose access; You vote to slash $282 million from job training programs; You vote to cut $731 million from Title I grants--that means 2,500 schools will be forced to stop providing this crucial aid to 1 million children; You are voting to cut over $580 million from special education grants--that shifts the cost of 300,000 students with special needs to State and local education agencies; You vote to cut $115 million from child care at a time when only one in six of the children eligible for child care assistance are receiving it--30,000 more kids will lose this aid; You vote to starve implementation of the Affordable Care Act at a time when the health reforms we passed are being implemented; You vote to cut funding for vaccinations and cancer screenings. These cuts only add to the deep cuts that have already been made: $12 billion since 2002 have been made to labor, education, and health programs, in addition to which the Budget Control Act added another $9 billion, and this resolution will add $7 billion more in cuts to what are critical priorities for this Nation. We cannot shortchange all of these fundamental priorities. It is time for this institution to exercise its moral responsibility. Use our budget as a vehicle for job creation and economic growth. I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous resolution.