Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I will conclude by saying that I urge the Chair to overrule the point of order and to allow this amendment to receive an up-or-down vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Whether you agree or disagree with the policy, it is imperative for our form of government that Congress be consulted on any such agreement that maintains our troops abroad or, for that matter, any defense or Status of Forces agreement that is made by the United States. It is our task as representatives of the people to debate the critical issues and to make the ultimate decision of whether to put or keep our troops in harm's way. This amendment will simply ensure in our relationship with Afghanistan that no defense agreement will be enacted without the ultimate consent of Congress, as is mandated by our Constitution.

Ms. DeLAURO. The bipartisan amendment that Congressman Jones and I offer ensures that any security agreement between the United States and Afghanistan will not be legal unless it comes in the form of a treaty or is specifically authorized by a law. The gentleman's point of order argues that this amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to know the definition of ``any agreement with the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that includes security assurances for mutual defense.'' While this definition is not written into statute, it is common sense. I also believe our responsibility under the Constitution takes precedence over this point of order. As it is, this point would cut into the heart of our constitutional duties as a Congress under article I, section 8. The power to declare war has been entrusted to the Congress and to the Congress alone. At the recent NATO summit in Chicago, President Obama and NATO leaders announced an end to combat operations in Afghanistan in 2013 and the transition of lead responsibility for security to the Afghan Government by the end of 2014. But even though Bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda has been decimated, the administration has also announced an agreement with the Government of Afghanistan that would keep an untold number of American troops there until 2024, which is 12 years from now.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the point of order.

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in support of my colleague's bipartisan amendment, which prohibits any funds provided in this act from being used to fulfill the Defense Department's current contract with Rosoboronexport, the Russian state arms dealer currently providing weapons to Syria for Mi-17 helicopters for the Afghan security forces. This amendment builds upon the bipartisan support of the amendment added to the House authorization bill that prohibits future contracts along the same lines and requires future contracts to be competitively bid so that U.S. manufacturers can compete on these taxpayer-funded deals. For over a year now, we have seen Syrian President Bashar al-Assad respond to peaceful demonstrations by the Syrian people with a brutal crackdown. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, over 17,000 people have been killed by the regime since violence began there in March 2011. Fighting this week has further intensified in and around Damascus, and there are reports, after similar violence in Houla and Qubair, that more than 100 civilians have been massacred in Tremseh. This is on top of torture, sexual violence, inference with access to medical treatment and many other gross human rights violations perpetrated by the al-Assad regime. At the same time, Russia continues to provide that regime with the means to perpetrate widespread systemic attacks on its civilians. Last year alone, they reportedly sold Damascus $1 billion in weapons. In January, they signed a deal with Damascus to supply Syria with 36 combat jets. Last month Secretary of State Clinton expressed concern that Russia is sending attack helicopters to Syria. The New York Times last Saturday, in an article on the defection of Syrian Air Force Captain Akhmed Trad, detailed the use of rocket-equipped Mi-17 helicopters by the regime. Earlier today, Russia, along with China, vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution that would have sanctioned the Assad regime for the continued use of heavy weapons. Yet, incredibly, the U.S. Defense Department has purchased 21 Mi-17 helicopters for the Afghan security forces and is reportedly purchasing 10 more through a no-bid with that Russian company, even though it supplies arms to Syria and was, for years, on the U.S. sanctions list for providing illegal nuclear assistance to Iran. If U.S. taxpayer dollars are going to be spent providing helicopters to the Afghans, those dollars should be spent on American systems that create jobs here at home. There are American companies available to manufacture the aircraft, which would increase interoperability with both the U.S. and NATO forces and support American manufacturing. The Defense Department is reportedly already training the Afghans how to fly and maintain American-made helicopters. At the very least, there should be an open competition for procurement of these helicopters, a competition we believe superior American manufacturers would win. In any case, the American taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize al-Assad's murderous regime in Syria. This amendment will end this no-bid contract, stop the use of Federal dollars to subsidize the massacres being perpetrated by the al-Assad regime. I urge you to support this bipartisan amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, we have now had combat troops in Afghanistan for over 10 years. It has become the longest war in the history of our Republic. Over 2,000 brave American men and women have perished in this conflict. Because of their sacrifice and the hard work, dedication, and sacrifices of thousands more brave young men and women, al Qaeda has been decimated and Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of the September 11 attacks against Americans, has been brought to justice. Now, almost 11 years after we first arrived, it is time to bring our military involvement in Afghanistan to an end. Afghanistan is its own sovereign country, and its citizens need to take responsibility for their destiny. As for us, we need to bring our troops home and to start reinvesting in America again. At the recent NATO summit in Chicago, President Obama and NATO leaders announced an end to combat operations in Afghanistan in 2013 and a transition of lead responsibility for security to the Afghan Government by the end of 2014. These are important steps, but the President also recently signed an agreement in Kabul that could keep American troops in the region until 2024. We need to bring our troops home now, not 16 years from now. This war is costing American taxpayers $130 billion a year. Especially at a time when we are trying to cut the deficit, reduce unnecessary spending, and reinvest in our own economic growth, this is far too much. The entire GDP of Afghanistan is $30 billion, less than a quarter of what we are spending year in and year out. The nation and Government of Afghanistan face many tough challenges ahead, including working to foster economic development in the foundations of civil society, such as literacy, education, agricultural development, and the empowerment of women. But these are not challenges that are primarily military in nature. As such, it is time to let local Afghans do local jobs and build their economy rather than rely on government contractors. I have visited in Afghanistan twice over the course of this conflict and saw firsthand how our renewed attention to the region since 2009 and the counterinsurgency strategy developed by General Petraeus has brought marked improvements in securing areas, in training security and police, in establishing the rule of law, and in developing local economies. Perhaps, most importantly, on a trip last March, I felt a sense of optimism in Afghanistan that was not there before, as well as an understanding among our military that the Afghans must soon take over and govern their own nation. The time is now. For over a decade, our troops have accomplished the mission that they were given. They have performed heroically. They, including thousands of brave servicemembers from Connecticut, have been operating in one of the most inhospitable environments one can imagine, making sacrifices for their country by serving, as well as losing this time with their families. It is time to bring our troops home and for the people of Afghanistan to forge their own destiny. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. This majority needs to stop working to put American families at risk and start working to make our economy healthy.

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, if the Majority succeeds in repealing the Affordable Care Act, as they have tried to do over thirty times now, it will be the women of America who are especially harmed. Insurance companies will be allowed to charge women more for the same coverage once again. They will be able to withhold coverage from women who have had a child or a C-section, or even who have been victims of domestic violence. Coverage for maternity and pediatric care will all disappear. Women will lose access to the free recommended preventive screenings that save lives. Subsidies to help working mothers buy insurance for their families will dry up. We know for a fact this will happen. According to the National Women's Law Center, over 90 percent of the best-selling plans in states that have not already banned gender rating still charge women more than men for the same coverage. This costs women and their families approximately $1 billion a year. And this is what the House Majority wants to bring us back to. We fought hard two years ago to put woman's health on an equal footing with that of her spouse, son, and brother at last. We should build on that, not throw it all away. If the Majority wants us to think they care about women's health, it is time for them to walk the walk. That means stopping these partisan political games, and allowing the fully constitutional reforms in the Affordable Care Act to work for women.

Ms. DeLAURO. What will happen if the House majority succeeds in repealing the Affordable Care Act? Seventeen million children with preexisting conditions will once again be denied coverage; 6.6 million under 26 will no longer be covered by their parents' insurance plan; insurers will be allowed to discriminate against women again, charge them more, deny them coverage because they've had a Cesarean section, and leave maternity and pediatric care out of their policies. The doughnut hole reopens, costing seniors billions of dollars; 360,000 small businesses lose tax credits. Americans will have to pay out-of- pocket for preventive services like cancer screenings and wellness exams, preventive services that could have saved the life of Celia, a 50-year-old East Haven woman who died from breast cancer because she simply could not afford a mammogram. And 30,000 Americans will lose their health insurance and be left to their fate while every single Republican in this House will maintain their health care coverage. Repealing the Affordable Care Act is wrong. It was wrong the first time. It is wrong the 31st time. Welcome to Groundhog Day in the House of Representatives.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege this morning to welcome Rabbi Joel Levenson of Congregation B'nai Jacob in Woodbridge, Connecticut, to the House of Representatives. When Joel graduated from Miami University of Ohio, he thought about going to either law school or rabbinical school, but thought the world already had too many lawyers and not enough men of faith. After graduating from the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York and serving under Rabbi Albert Lewis--the subject of Mitch Albom's book, ``Have a Little Faith''--in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, Rabbi Levenson came to Woodbridge, Connecticut, where he has been the spiritual leader of Congregation B'nai Jacob since 2008. There he has gained a reputation as a dynamic and inspiring presence on the pulpit, and he; his wife, Leora, who is with us today; and his children, Shir, Sam, and Gideon, have become warm and caring members of the community. We are joined by what we call the mishpucha up in the gallery this morning, and we welcome them all today. Over his time in Woodbridge, Rabbi Levenson has been dedicated to promoting social justice and spiritual growth throughout Connecticut, and he has worked to foster a strong sense of Jewish identity, a joyful and inspiring congregation, and innovative educational opportunities throughout the synagogue. Rabbi Levenson personally teaches preschool classes and meets with and works with Woodbridge teenagers, including leading them on trips to Israel. He has also worked extensively with Outreach to young families. And he is a dedicated cyclist and triathlete who has taken part in the Israel ride, a yearly ride across the 400 miles from Jerusalem to Eliat. I thank Rabbi Levenson for his commitment to improving our community and for his profound words this morning. Rabbi Levenson, we thank you for leading us in today's invocation.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying Agriculture-FDA appropriations bill. It does not meet our responsibilities to the American people. This bill's allocation is $1.7 billion below the President's request. The lower allocation represents a breaking of the bipartisan agreement we made last August. It will have a dramatic impact on the fundamental American priorities embodied in this bill, especially in the critical areas of financial protection, nutrition, food safety, and antihunger programs. I would like to submit this letter from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for the Record, a letter that speaks out against the inadequate funding for nutrition and antihunger programs in this appropriations bill. Nearly half of the babies born in the United States every year participate in the Women, Infants, and Children feeding program. It is a short-term intervention that can help provide a lifetime of good nutrition and health behaviors. And yet at a time of great need, the bill underfunds WIC by $119 million. The Food and Drug Administration is the cornerstone of our food and product safety system, and yet this bill rescinds $47.7 million in previous funding and displaces the agency's vital mission: protecting the health of Americans at risk. The bill cuts the Food for Peace program. Because of this cut, at least 6.6 million fewer hungry people around the globe will be fed. Already, 300 children perish every hour of every day because of hunger and related causes. Ronald Reagan correctly called Food for Peace ``an instrument of American compassion,'' and we should support it. We know for a fact that the risky behavior in derivative markets that precipitated the 2008 financial meltdown is still happening. We've seen it with MF Global and J.P. Morgan. Americans want more accountability from Wall Street and less speculation erratically driving up oil prices. And yet, this bill funds the Commodity Futures Trading Commission at $25 million less than 2012 and the full $128 million--41 percent. This is quite simply setting the commission up for failure. We have a lot of work to do to fix this bill. We must ensure that the fundamental priorities of the people that we represent--like preserving fair markets, improving nutrition, ensuring food and consumer safety-- are upheld. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. I might add that in the State of Connecticut, in the Third Congressional District, one out of seven individuals is food insecure. What does food insecurity mean? It means they don't know where their next meal is coming from.

Ms. DeLAURO. We have 49 million people in this Nation who are going to bed hungry every night in the richest country in the world. It is inconceivable that we would cut back on food and nutrition programs when the Nation is suffering from the most serious economic recession it is having, and that we would cut back on food stamps. We have cut back on school breakfast programs, school lunch programs, The Emergency Food Assistance program, the Commodity Supplemental Food program. And while the richest people in this Nation are having three squares a day or better, let's get our priorities straight. Let's focus on the people that we have come here to represent. Oppose this rule and oppose this bill. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington DC, June 26, 2012. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, we wish to address the moral and human dimensions of the FY 2013 Agriculture Appropriations legislation. The bishops' conference urges you to resist significant cuts to both domestic and international food aid and conservation and rural development programs. Major reductions at this time of economic turmoil and rising poverty will hurt hungry, poor and vulnerable people in our nation and around the world. In For I Was Hungry and You Gave Me Food, the bishops wrote, ``The primary goals of agricultural policies should be providing food for all people and reducing poverty among farmers and farm workers in this county and abroad.'' Adequate nutrition is essential to protect human life and dignity. We urge support for just and sufficient funding for agriculture policies that serve hungry, poor and vulnerable people while promoting good stewardship of the land and natural resources. In our soup kitchens and on our parish doorsteps, we see the faces of poor and hungry people every day. As a faith community, we feed those without work, pregnant women and children and seniors on a limited income. The Catholic community at home and abroad includes farmers, ranchers, farmworkers and business owners who grow food, care for the land and help rural communities prosper. The bishops' conference acknowledges the difficult challenges that Congress, the Administration and government at all levels face to match scarce resources with growing needs. A just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons; it requires shared sacrifice by all. As pastors and teachers, we believe these are economic, political and moral choices with human consequences. Our bishops' conference has offered several moral criteria to help guide difficult budgetary decisions: Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects ``the least of these'' (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times. We address the following programs as they reflect a priority for poor and hungry people and promote good stewardship:

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. We are not here as representatives of Wall Street, but we are representatives of the American people. We need the CFTC to oversee the risky behaviors to enforce the law. We are here to represent the American taxpayer, not Wall Street or big banks. The current funding that's being pursued by the majority is reckless. I urge my colleagues to put Main Street over Wall Street and support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restore full funding, per the President's request of $308 million, to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The additional $128 million in funds would be raised through the sale of new leases. The current funding level for CFTC sets the commission up for failure. If the current funding level remains as is, Wall Street will be able to continue the risky manipulation of derivatives that brought on the last collapse, and Big Oil will continue to enjoy inflated profits every year due to erratic and artificially swollen oil prices. The losers will be the American people, who will pay more at the pump, or even worse. At this funding level, the House majority sets up taxpayers to pay for yet another costly bailout of Wall Street. Republican and Democratic experts agree that the CFTC needs to be fully funded. Republican Gene Guilford, President and CEO of the Independent Connecticut Petroleum Association, served in the Commerce and Energy Departments under Ronald Reagan. He has said that the funding level for CFTC is ``horribly counterproductive.'' It would ``weaken its ability to enforce the oversight laws necessary to protect the American people.'' According to Brooksley Born, the former chair of the CFTC, the commission is ``desperately in need of additional funding.'' This budget, she argues, ``would leave us all vulnerable to future financial crises.'' According to Gary Gensler, the current chairman of the CFTC, the agency is only 10 percent larger than it was in the 1990s, even as the futures market has grown to approximately $37 trillion notional. And through the Dodd-Frank reforms, Congress has added oversight of the $300 trillion swaps market, which is even more complex, and increased the number of trades under their jurisdiction by 334 percent in 2011. Gensler says, ``It is as if all of a sudden the National Football League expanded eight times to play more than 100 games in a weekend with the same amount of referees.'' We know for a fact that the risky behavior in the derivatives market is what precipitated the 2008 financial meltdown. It's still happening. We have seen it at MF Global and J.P. Morgan. We also know for a fact that excessive speculation in oil markets causes gas prices to oscillate wildly. Even the CEO of Exxon has said as much. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to help to make sure that the CFTC has the resources to do its job, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. If I might just take a second to remind the gentleman from Texas that, in fact, this amendment was made in order. And in the body of the language, it does talk about it being subject to appropriations. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have left?

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. One year ago yesterday, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in the case of Walmart v. Dukes to make it harder for workers to challenge discrimination in the workplace. Upending decades of judicial practice and precedent, the Court erected new unwarranted and challenging barriers for groups of private employees to challenge unemployment discrimination. As a result, 1.5 million female Walmart employees were denied remedy for discrimination that resulted in smaller paychecks, limited professional advancement, and increased financial pressures for families trying to make ends meet. In fact, all workers throughout the country will find it more difficult to challenge any discrimination in the workplace because of the Court's decision. Yesterday, I introduced the Equal Employment Opportunity Restoration Act, a thoughtful, careful, and effective legislative response to this flawed Supreme Court decision. It restores the rights of groups of plaintiffs to pursue actions against employment discrimination. We need to see discrimination in the workplace addressed. We have to protect employees' rights to bring suit together. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Help restore the legal rights of ordinary citizens over corporations.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. If the gentleman would just back off. Okay? At 17 million acres--roughly the size of West Virginia--the Tongass is the crown jewel of our forest system. Along with the Chugach National Forest in Alaska, it boasts the world's most intact temperate rainforest, with centuries-old trees providing critical habitat for wolves, grizzly bears, wild salmon, bald eagles and other wildlife. The Tongass is also a vital piece of the tourism industry in Alaska, allowing visitors from around the world to take in a true environmental spectacle. I have experienced the beauty of the Tongass firsthand when I got to travel through the forest on an old Navy minesweeper 10 years ago. It's hard to imagine why anyone would want to spoil such a perfect example of nature's magnificence, but the bill before us would do exactly that. It removes 100,000 acres of some of the most used and visited lands in southeast Alaska from public ownership and gives them to the Sealaska Corporation, who plans to clear-cut the vast majority of its land selections for timber. This is approximately 20,000 acres over Sealaska's legal entitlement under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement of 1971. With 290,000 acres of land and an additional 560,000 acres of subsurface rights, Sealaska is already the largest private landholder in southeast Alaska. And after three decades of extensive and intensive logging, they have left a legacy of expansive clear-cuts of the lands they already own. If this bill passes, they will do the same to some of the most biologically and culturally valuable lands within the Tongass. Over the last 50 years, this national forest has already lost 550,000 acres of old-growth trees and been marked by 5,000 miles of logging roads. This bill further threatens what is left of this national forest. It also endangers the economy of southeast Alaska by privatizing lands and waters that are used by guides and commercial fishermen, industries that employ over 17,000 men and women, 20 percent of the Alaskans in the region. The Forest Service currently manages these lands for multiple uses and has announced a transition plan to ensure a sustainable future for the Tongass. We should not deliver this national treasure--and one of Alaska's most substantial tourism draws--over solely to one private corporation for timber rights. I urge my colleagues to protect the Tongass for generations of Americans to come and to vote against this amendment. Announcement by the Chair

Ms. DeLAURO. I would love to do that, dear colleague, but I can't. I need to be back in Appropriations.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, which would result in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, our Nation's largest and wildest national forest, being opened to additional logging. At 17 million acres--roughly the size of West Virginia--the Tongass is the crown jewel of our forest system.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to join the many who have gathered in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Neighborhood Music School in New Haven, Connecticut. This is a remarkable milestone for this wonderful institution of learning. The Neighborhood Music School is not your ordinary school. Its 3,000 students hail from communities across Connecticut and range from 6 months to over 80 years of age. The Neighborhood Music School offers a myriad of programs in music and dance that are open to children and adults regardless of age, economic status, or experience. The arts, in all of its many mediums, are both a celebration of culture and tradition as well as a means of personal expression. The Neighborhood Music School has opened the doors of opportunity to thousands throughout its century-long history and has become a beloved community treasure. The Neighborhood Music School has a particularly interesting history. When it first opened in 1911, on Wooster Street in New Haven, it was established in conjunction with St. Paul's Church as a settlement house and social services organization for local immigrants known as the Neighborhood House. However, in its first four years Neighborhood House saw such a demand for music programs it was decided that a separate entity, the Neighborhood House Music School was created and placed under the leadership of its first director, Susan Hart Dyer, a violinist and graduate of the Yale School of Music. Faculty came from the Yale School of Music and the New Haven Symphony Orchestra. The school grew rapidly and even during the most difficult economic times of the Great Depression, the demand for the programs remained high. In 1945, Neighborhood House Music School officially became an independent entity called Neighborhood Music School and during the next decade a change in admission policies broadened the school's reach and enrollment reached new heights. It was in 1968, after a 4-year long building fund campaign, that the Neighborhood Music School opened its new home on Audubon Street, in what is now the heart of New Haven's thriving arts community. Today, in its 30,000 square foot facility, Neighborhood Music School is home to thirty-three studios, practice rooms, a recital hall, and a library, showcasing the extraordinary talents of thousands of children and adults every year. In fact, just a few years ago, eighteen students from the Neighborhood Music School participated in the White House Community Classroom Music Series program with First Lady Michelle Obama. It was an extraordinary opportunity for them and a testament to the incredible opportunities this organization provides. The Neighborhood Music School is an extraordinary organization--a place where anyone can explore their passion for music and dance. I am proud to join our community in congratulating them on their 100th anniversary and wish them all the best for many more years of success.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with the heaviest of hearts that I rise today to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Vincent Williams. Though he was 85 years old and lived a full and happy life, to all us who knew him, his sudden passing this week came much too soon. Vinnie was a fixture at 59 Elm Street--the building where my District Office is located. Sitting next to his shoeshine stand in the first floor lobby, he always had a kind word and a contagious smile for any passerby. Vinnie was one of those people who always brightened the days of others. He had a kind and generous nature and he loved seeing people every day--always ready for a conversation. If he saw that you were a little down, he would do what he could to make you smile. He was the last of the shoeshine men in New Haven and he was a beloved member of our building's community. Born in North Carolina, one of Vinnie's first jobs was as a shoeshine. A local barber offered him the position and it came naturally to him. He later joined the United States Navy and served our country with honor and integrity during World War II. It was after his service that he arrived in New Haven where he took up work at the Winchester firearms factory. After five years at Winchester Vinnie took a job with the U.S. Postal Service where he worked until his retirement. However, retirement did not suit Vinnie well--he did not like sitting at home. So he went back to where he began--a shoeshine stand--setting up shop at the 59 Elm Street building. My staff and I will always carry fond memories of Vinnie. Almost every afternoon, Vinnie would close up shop and take a walk around the building stopping in each office to wish everyone a good afternoon. I am not sure how many people knew about Vinnie's sweet-tooth, but he had one. My staff always made sure the small candy dish at our front desk had something in it--because the few times it did not, Vinnie was the first one to let us know. He also loved the word jumbles in the daily paper and worked them out every day. Every once in a while, however, he would get stumped. There is one member of my staff that he would always ask for help. After memorizing the letters, he would come upstairs, poke his head in her office, repeat the letters and give her a minute to come up with a suggestion. Even if the others he asked were stumped as well, he would work at it until he figured it out--and then would let everyone he had asked know the answer as well. On behalf of myself and my staff, I extend my deepest sympathies to his six children, Ulysses, Cynthia, Gail, Michael, Latanga, and Vincent, Jr., as well as his family and friends. I want them to know how many lives he touched and the impact he had on others. Vinnie was a remarkable human being. His absence leaves an emptiness in our hearts that will never be quite be filled. He will be deeply missed by all of those fortunate enough to have known him.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this flawed and dangerous bill, which attempts to use the very real issue of gender discrimination as a pretext to roll back women's health and basic reproductive rights. The authors of this legislation claim it is intended to fight discrimination against female children in America. In fact, this is just another thinly veiled attempt by the Majority to enact their ideological preferences into law, put barriers between a woman and her doctor, and take us back to a time when family planning opportunities did not exist for women. We have now seen a disturbing pattern from this Majority. From endlessly trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act to, earlier this month, blocking the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act reauthorization that passed the Senate, the Majority has continually worked to roll back women's health protections in America. It is doubly insulting for them to try it again here, while claiming to stand up for women. If the authors of this legislation are seriously concerned with gender discrimination, I strongly urge them to support the Paycheck Fairness Act, which helps ensure that men and women are paid the same for the same job. What they should not do is pass another ideological and discriminatory bill that claims to stand up for women while putting their health at risk. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.