Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong support of the Fair Minimum Wage Act, introduced by Congressman George Miller, which will raise the minimum wage over 3 years to $10.10 per hour and then index the wage to inflation. It is long past time to get this done. The minimum wage in America used to be equal to about half of average wages. Today, at $7.25 an hour, it is barely a third. The purchasing power of the minimum wage has been dropping steadily since 1968. If the minimum wage kept up with inflation over the last 40 years, it would be at $10.55 an hour. This failure to keep pace particularly hurts women, who make up nearly two out of three workers making the minimum wage. At that rate, a year of full-time work comes out to $14,500 a year. For a mom with two kids, it's over $3,000 below the poverty line. For tipped workers, the situation is even worse. They make only $2.13 an hour. Low minimum wage is not just bad for workers. It's bad for business and the economy. Low wages limit consumer demand, which stalls our country's economic growth. It hurts everyone. Raising the minimum wage would not just mean a raise for 21 million workers, it would create 140,000 new jobs and boost our GDP by $33 billion. We've waited long enough. It's time to make sure all our workers make a decent pay for a hard day's work. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. The House majority should bring legislation to this floor that will prevent the automatic, across-the-board cuts that will occur on Friday. These dangerous, indiscriminate cuts threaten our economy and vital services for our children, for women, for seniors, small businessmen, and our servicemembers in uniform. Today, we are spending $12 billion less on labor, health, and education programs than we were in 2002. And because of the cuts we made in the Budget Control Act, we will be spending $21 billion less on these programs in 2022. And yet, despite these already made cuts the sequester will gut labor, health, and education programs by nearly another $7 billion this year. The results? Over 10,000 fewer people in my State will get the assistance they need to find jobs. Over 1,500 fewer Connecticut children will see vaccines for diseases. And 8,000 disadvantaged students will lose access to educational services. This will also relieve teachers and teacher aides of their jobs, thereby raising unemployment. This is in addition to cuts that will impact food safety inspection, Meals on Wheels for seniors, support for public safety officers, and to keep air traffic controllers on the job. I ask unanimous consent to bring up my colleague Mr. Van Hollen's Stop the Sequester Job Loss Now Act. It replaces sequestration with a balanced, bipartisan approach to deficit reduction. We have a responsibility in this body: pass a budget that protects the middle class, our seniors, and the most vulnerable--and we have to act.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed rollcall vote No. 44 ``To eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees'' (H.R. 273). 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. 45, ``Condemning the Government of North Korea for its flagrant and repeated violations of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions, for its repeated provocations that threaten international peace and stability, and for its February 12, 2013, test of a nuclear device'' (H. Res. 65). 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. 43 ``Providing for the conditional adjournment of the House and Senate'' (H. Con. Res. 15). 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. 33 On Ordering the Previous Question (H. Res. 48). 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. 34 On Agreeing to H. Res. 48. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``no.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong and vociferous opposition to what I view as a misguided amendment. It aims to cut funding that would help repair the seawalls and research buildings damaged by Superstorm Sandy at the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge in Connecticut. This is a vindictive amendment, in my view, that needlessly slashes disaster relief for one particular State, and I urge its defeat. Named after the former Republican Congressman from my State, the Stewart McKinney Wildlife Refugee spans 70 miles of Connecticut shoreline, including 800 acres of island habitats, a beach, and tidal wetlands. One of the more remarkable aspects of the McKinney Refuge is a chain of seven islands along the coast. The islands support habitat for several federally endangered and threatened species and also hosts related research facilities. These islands are key stops for birds migrating along the Atlantic Flyway, and two of them have been named ``important bird areas'' by the National Audubon Society. Some of these islands are also in close proximity to urban centers. All of them sustained severe damage during Superstorm Sandy. For example, the storm damaged the dock, seawall, and education building on the Outer Island research station, which is also the most visited island within the McKinney Refuge. As a result, the natural resources on Outer Island cannot currently be properly managed. On Outer Island, the lack of repairs will have serious environmental consequences. If the seawall isn't repaired, erosion will undermine the foundation of the main building, dislodge the septic tank and cause significant contamination, and will lead to major repair costs. That's why we need to make available disaster aid to the McKinney Refuge so that they can recover from this storm, just as we have many times in the past for other refuges affected by disasters all across this country. Let me give you some examples. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane Ike in 2008, we appropriated $71 million for wildlife refuges in Texas, $20 million in Mississippi, and $74 million for refuges in Louisiana, the sponsor of this amendment's home State. One of the central responsibilities of this institution is to act on behalf of the American people whenever a major disaster occurs. Federal disaster relief is meant to restore homes, businesses, communities, and Federal facilities to their pre-disaster condition. We do this whether the disaster is a fire in the west, a tornado in the south, or a hurricane in the northeast. There is no good reason to make an exception of the McKinney Refuge here. The sponsor of this amendment, Congressman Fleming of Louisiana, has argued that this bill includes $9.8 million solely to repair the damage done at the Outer Island. This is simply not true. The Fish and Wildlife Service requested over $10.9 million for repairs to the McKinney Refuge, including just over $2 million for Outer Island. The rest of the funds, however, would support repairs all along the 70 miles of affected Connecticut coast. By cutting the funding needed to rebuild the Connecticut coastline to its pre-Sandy condition, this amendment prevents the McKinney Refuge from meeting its Federal commitment to conserve wildlife, to provide education and outdoor recreation for the public, and it unfairly singles out Connecticut and all of the protected wildlife along our shores. Is the State and refuge somehow unworthy of Federal support? It's a terrible precedent for disaster aid. When these disasters occur, we have always come together as a Nation of Americans, just as we did after Katrina and Andrew and Irene, and we should not change that now. I urge my colleagues to reject what I view as a pernicious amendment and help Connecticut's McKinney Refuge rebuild from this storm. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Ms. DeLAURO. I would just want to say to my colleague, and quite frankly, I don't recall whether you were here or not here during the extensive debates that we had on this floor as it regarded Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Hurricane Ike in 2008--$71 million for wildlife refuges in Texas, $20 million for refuges in Mississippi, and $74 million for refuges in Louisiana. Let me just tell you, we have over and over again laid out what the difficulties are and what kind of environmental damage this will cause to the Outer Island, what will happen to contamination in the area, and major areas of our coast along our Connecticut coastline. It is amazing to me that we find it necessary, that in the Northeast, somehow we are being held hostage when the rest of the Nation has received every dime they have asked for. It's wrong, and we should defeat this amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise to express my strong support for this long overdue, this much-needed $51 million in disaster relief. Sandy was one of the most severe storms to hit Connecticut in our history. We are asking, we are pleading--and we shouldn't have to beg-- for money for the Northeast to be able to survive this tragedy that hit us. We need to make available the disaster aid. Families in the Northeast need to recover, repair from Superstorm Sandy, just as we have in the past from other disasters across the country. This is one of the central responsibilities of this institution, to act on behalf of the American people after a natural disaster. I hope that we make sure that all the States affected by this storm are eligible to receive Community Development Block Grant funding, vital aid, so places like Milford, Connecticut, which saw hundreds of homes wiped out by the storm, can fully recover. I also urge the defeat of an amendment that cuts funding for the rebuilding of seawalls and research buildings at the Stewart McKinney National Wildlife Refuge in Connecticut. I might remind my colleague from Louisiana that between Rita, Wilma, and Katrina, this institution appropriated $130 billion, not $3.9 billion, in disaster relief. The families affected by Sandy are in their hour of need. They have waited too long for this institution to act. I urge all my colleagues to support this disaster aid funding to help the Northeast rebuild.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Writing at the time of Katrina, Harvard Professor Michael Ignatieff called the Constitution ``a contract of citizenship'' that promises, first and foremost, protection. That government will help ``citizens to protect their families and possessions from forces beyond their control.'' He writes: In America, a citizen has a claim of right on the resources of his or her government when they simply cannot help themselves. When disasters strike, they test whether the contract is respected in a citizen's hour of need. When the levees broke, the contract of American citizenship failed. Mr. Speaker, the levees broke. They broke in Connecticut, in New York, and New Jersey. Government is about helping families recover and rebuild from major disasters like Superstorm Sandy. In a shocking display of neglect, this House majority decided not to allow a vote on disaster aid funds so desperately needed to recover and repair from this storm. Hurricane Sandy was one of the most severe storms to hit Connecticut in our State's history. All across our region, families' houses were destroyed and lives were upended. And whether it has been a fire in the West, a tornado in the Midwest, a hurricane in the gulf coast, or a storm in the Northeast, this body acted. We didn't say no. It was a resounding ``yes'' to help because it is the central responsibility of this institution to act on behalf of the American people. And yet here we are 2 months since Sandy destroyed thousands of homes and businesses, took 100 lives across this Nation. This House majority said ``no'' on a vote for disaster assistance to help millions of people get back on their feet again. The Republican leadership has broken that contract of citizenship. They have said ``no'' to my constituents in Stratford, in Milford, in New Haven, East Haven, West Haven, Branford, North Branford and Guilford. They said ``no'' to the rest of the towns in Connecticut and in New York and New Jersey. They broke the contract of citizenship. They said: You are on your own. My friends, our people cannot be on their own. We have a central responsibility to act on behalf of the American people when they are overwhelmed in circumstances that they had no control over. Let us act. Let us act today to restore that faith and confidence in the American government.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with the heaviest of hearts that I rise today to join the Stratford and Sandy Hook communities as they remember Victoria Leigh Soto who was so tragically taken from us last Friday. Only 27 years old, Victoria was a first-grade teacher at Sandy Hook Elementary School where she lost her life protecting her students. Room 10 lost its teacher and we lost an exceptional young woman. A lifelong resident of Stratford, Connecticut, Victoria graduated from Stratford High School in 2003 and earned a degree with high honors in Education and History from Eastern Connecticut State University. She was currently working to complete her Master's Degree at Southern Connecticut State University. She was a student teacher at Brewster Elementary School in Durham, Connecticut and in her fifth year as a first-grade teacher at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Victoria was fulfilling the dream she had had since she was just three years old. Teaching was her passion and it showed. Her students adored her--the many pictures inscribed with ``I Love Miss Soto'' that adorned her desk a testament to the impact she had on the children she was charged to care for and educate each day. Victoria was equally as passionate about her family. In one of her Facebook postings she wrote of her life, ``In my spare time, I love spending time with my black lab, Roxie. I love spending time with my brothers, my sisters, and cousins.'' Family and friends have described her as a role model--not only to them but to everyone she met. As the event at Sandy Hook Elementary School unfolded, Victoria quickly hid her young students in closets and cabinets. When the gunman came into her classroom Victoria told him that her students were not in the class but in the gym. He turned the gun on her and she was lost to us. Her students would later be found by first responders, huddled together in the closets and cabinets. She saved each of their lives while sacrificing her own. Victoria was a hero in every sense of the word. The tragic event that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School and all of those we lost that day will never be erased from our minds. Though there are no words that can ease her families suffering, I hope that they can take some small comfort in the knowledge that Victoria will always be remembered as a hero. My thoughts and prayers are with her parents, Carlos and Donna, as well as her siblings, Jillian, Carlee, and Carlos Matthew, and extended family as they say goodbye to their angel. Victoria Leigh Soto was an extraordinary young woman and will long serve as an inspiration to us all.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for the depth of his feeling and the work he has done over the last several days, to help to bring some solace and peace to families who have been so struck by the devastation in Newtown, Connecticut. I strongly support this resolution and condemn, as my colleagues do, the vicious attack at the Sandy Hook Elementary School and commemorate our children and the teachers who were struck down in this terrible tragedy. It is overwhelming. I think all of us at the memorial service last night were overwhelmed. It was a slaughter of the innocent. Every parent and grandparent sees in the eyes and the smiles and the looks on those children's faces who we lost their own children and their grandchildren, knowing that there for the grace of God go I. What happened in Newtown is unthinkable. A normal Friday morning in the midst of a holiday season, Sandy Hook Elementary School, a place where children should be safe to learn, to grow, suddenly without warning became a place of senseless violence. Within minutes, the actions of a young and mentally ill man devastated a small town community, broke the hearts of millions across the country, and murdered six teachers and administrators and 20 innocent children, all of them between 6 and 7 years old. They're that big. They are that big. Such an unspeakable crime seems impossible to make sense of. How could this young man kill so many innocent? How could so many beautiful little angels with their whole lives ahead of them be taken from their families? They were just babies. They were just babies. It's hard to witness such a senseless and evil act and similar acts that some of my colleagues in this Chamber have faced. In Aurora and Portland, Oakland, Tucson, Blacksburg, Littleton, you can't help but feel a despairing of the soul. We in this institution cannot afford that luxury. We need to be strong for the families of the fallen in Newtown and for the families of children all over America. To the Newtown community and to all of the Connecticut families and parents and siblings who have been touched by what happened on Friday, our thoughts and our prayers are with you. What you are going through is indescribable. We can be sympathetic. We can be empathetic. We do not know that sense of despair that you feel, but you must know that our Nation shares and mourns your loss. mourns your loss. I, too, as did my colleague, Chris Murphy, acknowledge the tremendous heroism of the adults who were killed on Friday. Individuals like Principal Dawn Hochsprung who ran at the assassin, told people to run away from him in order to protect her kids and the school. The schoolteacher Vicki Soto of Stratford, Connecticut, and I represent Stratford, Connecticut, who in the heat of a terrible moment gave her life to protect her students. She hid them. She hid them, and lost her life in doing so. They all died in the line of duty. They are heroes and heroines. They gave their lives to protect those children that they deal with every day, that they educate, that they care for, and that they love as if they were their own. To the first responders who put their lives on the line to stop the senseless killing in Sandy Hook, we say thank you for your courage and for preventing more young lives from being lost, for they too ran into a building not knowing what they were going to face. Moving forward, we in this institution have to take commonsense, constructive steps that will help to ensure these types of tragedies will not happen again; and they include ensuring better access to quality mental health care, strengthening programs so communities will have the necessary mental health resources. We've heard so much in the last several days about how we need to secure the physical plant of the school; and, yes, we need to do that. They need to be secure, but we cannot turn them into prisons for these young people. I wish and hope that at the same time we're talking about those kinds of efforts, that we talk about putting a mental health professional in our schools. That is security, as well as stationing police cruisers in front of our schools. It means doing everything in our power to prevent guns from falling into the hands of violent criminals, and giving law enforcement officials the tools they need. The President said last night that caring for our children must be our first task, and we can no longer tolerate these tragedies, and we must change. He asked if we are doing what we can to protect our children, and he said that answer must be no, and we need to protect them. At a more fundamental level, we cannot let this terrible tragedy harden our hearts against our fellow men and women. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King: Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that. So let us honor the fallen in Newtown by doing everything that we can to prevent these tragedies in the future. Let us follow the example of those heroes and innocents who perished. Let's commit to one another to rekindling our faith and love, compassion and community. Let's hold our children and our grandchildren close. Love them and tell them that you love them as many times as you are able. General Leave

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Thank you very, very much. There are not enough words to express our thanks collectively to you, Congresswoman Schakowsky, for calling this Special Order today. As I was coming to the floor, I saw our colleague Carolyn Maloney, and our colleague Gwen Moore just completed her remarks, and we know the strength of her passion, and I know that waiting to speak today, as well, is Congresswoman Lois Capps. The issues that we talk about today are not just about women; it's about our families and what's happening in the lives of our families. It has been such an incredible road for families today, given the nature of the recession and how deep that recession was and how basically people are trying to hang on and to try to make their way to take care of themselves and their families. It's about maternal and child health. It's about their well-being. And I think that it is appropriate to talk about this now. You know, we did just come through an election, and I think one of the things that we saw in this election is that the issues that face women and children and their families were front and center. Women collectively addressed these issues and began to perk up their ears and to look to see: How am I going to take care of my family? Who is watching out for me and for my family? I know, as you are and my colleagues on this side of the aisle, we are very grateful for the decisions that they made, and now we have to make good on the promises that we made to families, and they are promises. We have a moral responsibility to address these issues of nutrition and health in this Nation. This is not something--when people want to say that there isn't any money to do these efforts, let's take a look at other areas where there is money and the enormous subsidies that we pay out to various interests and where we provide our Tax Code which we can use for good purposes but oftentimes may be used for a purpose that's contrary to the well-being of this Nation. Let's look to those places first before we start to look at cuts that affect the people in that photograph. They're real. They're not statistics. And this institution has that moral responsibility and that obligation to do well by them. My colleague, Gwen Moore, talked about the WIC program, the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, short- term program, science-based. It's a lifetime of good nutrition and health behaviors for at-risk women and children. What we have here is the investment in this program. What does it do? It doesn't just sink to the bottom of the ocean. It means healthier pregnancies, healthier birth outcomes, growth and the development of young children. Over half the babies born in the United States every year and 9 million mothers every month participate in this program all across the United States. My colleague, Congresswoman Moore, talked exclusively about the WIC program. I was going to do that, but let me take a different tack. Let me talk about the bounty in this Nation that you spoke about, my colleague. This is a land of plenty. We produce more food than any other nation in the world. I will tell you about my congressional district, the greater New Haven, Connecticut, district. One out of seven people in my district go to bed hungry. They don't know where their next meal is coming from. Connecticut, statistically, is the richest State in the Nation. It is essentially because we have something called Fairfield County and the Gold Coast where there's a lot of affluence. But we also have cities like New Haven and Hartford and Bridgeport and others who have families who are at risk. But what's happened with the issue when people talk about food insecurity, you know what it means, I know what it means, Congresswoman Capps knows what it means. It means people are hungry, and they don't know where their next meal is coming from. And we're now looking at food pantries that are out of food. There are all kinds of drives to fill up these shelves so that people who never thought they would have to use this kind of a service are in fact looking at the need to put food on their table. And yet we look at a set of circumstances here in the programs that we have jurisdiction over where we would see $134 billion in cuts to the food stamp program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or the SNAP program. What that means is when you have that massive cut there, millions of people are going to be jettisoned from the ability to feed their families and feed themselves. And that mother and child in that photograph are going to be without access to food. It is unconscionable. And then I will just say one more point. The Emergency Food Assistance Program, which is a program for families who are not eligible for food stamps, their funding is dependent upon what happens in the food stamp program. So the young woman in Branford, Connecticut, who came to an event with me, in a blue-collar town, the young woman had a job as a human resources administrator, helped to invest pension funds, had three sons, 18, 14 and 10, she got up and said, I am not eligible for food stamps so I come to the food bank to get emergency food assistance. She and her family, three grown boys, eat one meal a day in the United States of America, a land of plenty. She had tears in her eyes. She wants a job. She wants to go to work. She hasn't been able to find one. Connecticut has 9 percent unemployment. So her family is eating one meal a day. It's outrageous. It's unconscionable. We have the ability in this institution to change that so that our children don't go to bed hungry at night. That is not who we are. That's not where our values are. It is that moral responsibility. And if we move forward with what they're talking about in these deep cuts, this sequestration, all it is is letting people know about the deep cuts, and there will be even more cuts to food programs, nutrition programs, which will rob people of their lives and their ability to succeed. And it's particularly important for our children, our babies, our toddlers. Let's have the courage not to make this happen and to pull back from these unconscionable cuts to our food and nutrition programs. Thank you for doing this. God bless you.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed rollcall vote No. 604 regarding the ``Streamlining Claims Processing for Federal Contractor Employees Act'' (H.R. 6371). 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. 585 regarding the ``Andrew P. Carpenter Tax Act'' (H.R. 5044). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Reducing food-based Inorganic and Organic Compounds Exposure Act, or the R.I.C.E. Act. This bill, which I am proud to introduce with my colleagues Congressman Pallone of New Jersey and Congresswoman Lowey of New York, seeks to require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to set maximum allowable levels of arsenic in foods that contain rice. Last year, a Consumer Reports test found concerning levels of arsenic in some juices. Based on that report, I was glad to support Congressman Pallone's legislation that would require the FDA to set a maximum allowable level of arsenic and lead in fruit juices. I look forward to our continued work on this issue to protect the public health, which is why we have again partnered on this issue with this legislation. And I am glad to be working with Congresswoman Lowey, a champion of children's health. Recently, Consumer Reports completed another test on arsenic in our food supply, this time focusing on rice and rice products. That report found concerning levels of inorganic arsenic in some rice samples-- including infant rice cereals and beverages. For example, an adult consuming a single serving of some rice products had the possibility of getting nearly one and a half times the amount of inorganic arsenic that they would consume from an entire day's intake of water. The report also noted that individuals who consume rice have higher arsenic levels than those that did not consume rice. Another report published in Environmental Health Perspectives earlier this year identified high levels of inorganic arsenic in products containing organic brown rice syrup. The published study noted that the sampled products ``may introduce significant concentrations of [inorganic arsenic] to an individual's diet.'' And, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published an article in December 2011 entitled ``Rice consumption contributes to arsenic exposure in US women'' that highlighted the association between rice consumption and a biomarker of arsenic exposure in women. Clearly, it is imperative that the FDA act and set standards for acceptable levels of arsenic and other dangerous heavy metals in food products. This bill requires them to set such a level for arsenic in rice and foods containing rice. I intend to continue to work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Consumers Union, September 20, 2012. Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congresswoman DeLauro: Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, applauds your introduction of legislation to require the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to set standards to help lower the levels of arsenic in rice and rice products. As you know, yesterday Consumer Reports and the FDA each released important data showing troubling levels of arsenic in rice, which is a major food staple for millions of Americans. Inorganic arsenic--which both studies found in the various rice products examined--has been linked to bladder, lung and other cancers. The consumption of arsenic-containing rice is especially worrisome for infants and young children because of the negative impact arsenic may have on the developing brain. Rice is not the only food that contains worrisome levels of arsenic. Indeed, in a previous report released earlier this year, Consumer Reports found troubling levels of arsenic in apple and other juices. Yesterday's findings underscore the health risks of arsenic, particularly inorganic arsenic, and how rice is a particularly important source of arsenic exposure for Americans. That's because rice is a crop that is very effective in absorbing arsenic, in part because of the way it is grown in water-flooded conditions and also because it is often grown in areas where arsenical pesticides were once used. Consumer Reports tested over 200 samples of rice and rice products for arsenic, and we found significant levels of arsenic across all product categories, everything from organic rice to rice cereal, brown rice, white rice, and rice cakes. FDA tests found similar levels in its examination of more than 200 samples of rice products. FDA Commissioner Hamburg announced her agency would continue to collect and analyze 1,000 more samples by year's end to make a thorough assessment and plan next steps. We welcome and appreciate the FDA's efforts to prioritize its examination of arsenic in rice. We also believe that a federal standard limiting arsenic in rice and rice products is the best way to minimize consumers' exposure to unsafe levels of arsenic. Thank you for your leadership on this critical safety issue. We look forward to working with you and other members of Congress to help reduce arsenic levels in food. Sincerely, Ellen Bloom, Senior Director, Federal Policy and Washington Office. Ami V. Gadhia, Senior Policy Counsel.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this political resolution that aims to wrongly characterize the administration's position on Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. This is a waste of our time. The purpose of the administration's waiver proposal is to allow States to test alternative and innovative strategies that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families. As the Department of Health and Human Services has said repeatedly, waivers will only be approved if a State can prove that there is an effective transition from welfare to work. In essence, that they are putting more people to work. Is the majority now against putting people to work? Or are they against states' rights? If so, they may want to tell their Presidential candidate. In 2005, Mitt Romney and 28 other Republican Governors wrote a letter requesting more ``flexibility to manage their TANF programs'' and ``increased waiver authority.'' This is exactly what the administration's waiver proposal does. For 2 years now, instead of working with us to create jobs, instead of passing middle class tax cuts, instead of passing the Violence Against Women Act, instead of passing responsible deficit reduction and to help us to try to get the economy moving again, the urgent priorities that we should be working on right now, this majority has continually put forward politically motivated resolutions. You know, I would just say to you that the American people cannot afford a do-nothing Republican Congress that refuses to act on issues critical to the middle class, critical to small businesses, critical to farmers, critical to women. They need to expect better leadership from us. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. We need to get work done, not politically motivated resolutions.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I would just like to remind the previous speaker that 18 months ago there was a Republican majority in this House that made a determination to bring this Nation to its knees and to shut down the government because they would not raise a debt ceiling and were holding the government hostage and the Nation hostage. And quite frankly, that's what they're doing again today. And this time, it is about tax relief for working families and for middle class families. The duplicity is on the other side of the aisle, which always is trying to bring this body and this country to the precipice. I rise in opposition to the House majority's tax plan. What it would do is raise taxes on 25 million middle class and working families, people with incomes below $250,000. Their taxes would go up by $1,000 each. Why? In order to give another tax break to the rich. The New York Times article just a few days ago said the Republicans will press to extend tax cuts for affluent families scheduled to expire on January 1. But the same Republican tax plan would allow a series of tax cuts for the working poor and for the middle class to end next year. The Washington Post said, and I quote, ``Republicans want to raise taxes on the poor. Why?'' Why indeed. In order to pay for an over $160,000 tax break for millionaires. The plan would slash the Child Tax Credit, taking an average of $854 away from nearly 9 million families, pushing 2 million children back into poverty.

Ms. DeLAURO. It weakens the Earned Income Tax Credit, which kept 8.3 million people out of poverty last year--this as poverty rates head towards the highest levels in nearly half a century. We all know there's a better way forward. The Senate has passed a plan, supported by the President, which cuts taxes for 98 percent of Americans, 97 percent of small businesses in the country. Rather than holding tax relief for the vast majority of American families and small businesses hostage to more tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent, let us take up that Senate bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and this Republican Reverse Robin Hood tax plan, and support tax relief for the middle class.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, 26 years ago, I was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. I was lucky. I had excellent doctors. They detected the cancer by chance in stage I. If my cancer had not been caught early, I might not be speaking to you today. Many women are not so lucky because they have never had access to preventive health care. That is why I am so pleased to see that today, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, more lifesaving preventive services will begin to be covered for women all over the country. Last year, 54 million Americans with private health insurance gained access to preventive services without cost sharing, including over 700,000 in my State of Connecticut. Starting today, 47 million American women, including over 600,000 Connecticut women, will now have access to well-women visits, screenings for gestational diabetes, HPV and HIV, contraception, and counseling and support for STIs, breast feeding, and for domestic violence. A report in 2009 found that more than half of American women delayed or avoided necessary care because they could not afford it. This is why we passed the Affordable Care Act. Let's help Americans get quality care. Let's save lives.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. There is a better way forward. Let's take up the bill that was passed by the Senate, a bill that provides continued tax relief for the vast majority of American families. Let's not hurt working class families with children who are struggling to get by in order to support tax breaks for the wealthiest few. Let's have this House majority bring up the Senate-passed middle class tax plan. Support tax relief for middle class and working families, and I thank the gentleman.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, instead of debating whether we are going to have a resolution to fix a resolution or a resolution to fix a bill, what I want to urge is that what we do, that this House take up the middle class tax relief package that the Senate passed yesterday. So I rise to urge the House majority to bring to the floor the middle class tax cut that was passed in the Senate yesterday. Let me just take a quote from The Washington Post yesterday, the headline: ``Republicans want to raise taxes on the poor. Why?'' The tax cut plan passed yesterday by the Democrats in the Senate and supported by the President would provide tax cuts to 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses in this country. Failure to pass this bill would mean 114 million middle class families would see their taxes increase, including 1.4 million in my State of Connecticut. Yet, the House majority appears intent on holding these middle class tax cuts hostage to further tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this Nation. In fact, the House majority's reverse Robin Hood tax plan, which failed in the Senate yesterday, would raise taxes on middle class and working families in order to pay for even more breaks for the wealthiest Americans. The majority's tax plan is unconscionable. In order to pay for an over $160,000 tax break for millionaires, it would allow tax cuts to expire for 13 million working families and raise taxes on the most vulnerable households in America. The Republican proposal would significantly weaken the child tax credit, leaving nearly 9 million families to lose an average of $854, with a family with one full-time minimum wage earner and two children seeing their credit drop far more drastically, from $1,812 to $267. As a result, the families of 2 million children would be pushed back into poverty. In addition, the Republican proposal would weaken the earned income tax credit, which supports low-income working families. This credit kept 8.3 million people out of poverty last year. The proposal would also prevent millions of families from getting help to pay for college through the American Opportunity Tax Credit. And all to pay for more tax breaks for the wealthiest families in this country. This tax plan reveals the true colors of this House majority. They say they do not want to raise taxes on Americans in this economy, but their actions here speak louder than their rhetoric. Again, a quote from an article yesterday in The New York Times: Senate Republicans will press this week to extend tax cuts for affluent families scheduled to expire January 1, but the same Republican tax plan would allow a series of tax cuts for the working poor and the middle class to end next year.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.