Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. We should not be putting the interests of polluters before the health of our children. Numerous studies have demonstrated a link between increased exposure to industrial contaminants and impaired brain development or learning disabilities in children. For example, according to the Centers for Disease Control, health effects linked to prenatal and childhood methylmercury exposure include problems with language, memory, attention, visual skills, and lower IQs. And exposure to mercury is particularly dangerous for pregnant and breastfeeding women, as well as children, since mercury is most harmful in the early stages of development. In some cases around the world, such as in Minimata, Japan in the 1950s, we have seen exposure to industrial mercury sicken an entire generation of children. Mothers who exhibited no clinical symptoms of mercury poison gave birth to infants suffering from blindness, spasticity, and mental retardation. We tend to think an environmental catastrophe like Minimata could not happen here, but it could. Already in the United States one in six women of childbearing age has blood mercury levels that exceed those considered safe by the EPA for a developing baby. This amounts to approximately 630,000 babies born every year at risk of developmental problems because of prenatal mercury exposure. While America's approximately 600 coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury contamination in the United States, boilers and waste incinerators that burn mercury-containing products and chlorine manufacturers rank close behind. And yet it is now proposed that we delay, that we weaken the regulations protecting infants and children and allow these incinerators and boilers to continue spewing significant amounts of mercury pollution into the air every year, harming the health of our children and future generations of our children. It is unconscionable. And mercury is just one of the dangerous contaminants putting the development of children at risk. Exposure to lead threatens the health of young children and unborn babies in particular, can lead to miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth weight, and developmental delays. And that is why it was banned from gasoline and house paint by the EPA in the 1980s. These contaminants are deadly, which is why the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, put forward a rule to reduce them. In fact, the implementation of the Boiler MACT would reduce mercury emissions from major-source boilers and process heaters nationwide by 1.4 tons a year. It would also cut non-mercury metals, including lead, by 2,700 tons per year, hydrogen chloride by 30,000 tons per year, particulate matter by 47,000 tons per year, volatile organic compounds by 7,000 tons per year, and sulfur dioxide by 440,000 tons per year. According to the EPA, the benefits of reducing all of these dangerous emissions would outweigh costs by at least $20 billion a year. But even that aside, this act means 2,500 to 6,500 fewer premature deaths, 1,600 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis, 4,000 fewer heart attacks, 4,300 fewer hospital and emergency room visits, 3,700 fewer cases of acute bronchitis, 41,000 fewer cases of aggravated asthma, 78,000 fewer cases of respiratory systems, and 310,000 fewer missed work days. And it means fewer cases of impaired brain development and learning disabilities in our children. So on one side of the equation, we have $20 billion in savings per year, cleaner air, thousands of fewer deaths, and the healthy development of our kids. On the other, we have polluters; we have polluters who want to just keep harming the health and the lives of Americans. I know what side I'm on, and I find it extraordinarily telling that this House majority would take the side of big polluters over the health and the welfare of America's children. I urge my colleagues to stand up for America's children, stand against big polluters, and support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act of 2011, which will provide women and their health care providers with the information they need about identifying breast cancer risks and help to detect this deadly disease at the earliest possible stage. One in eight women in the United States will develop breast cancer in their lifetime. This year alone, more than 230,000 Americans will be diagnosed with breast cancer and nearly 40,000 women will die of the disease. We know that there are risk factors, things that increase an individual's chance of developing for breast cancer--gender, family history of cancer, certain genetic mutations, and numerous others. Among them is dense breast tissue. Women with more dense breast tissue have a relative risk of developing breast cancer that is four or more times higher than individuals with less dense breast tissue. And dense breast tissue may also make it more difficult to identify potential problems on mammograms. This bill seeks simply to update the information that women and their health care providers receive after a mammogram. By including information on an individual's breast density in these reports, we can raise awareness among both patients and their physicians. We can help ensure appropriate screening, and help make sure that more women are diagnosed at an earlier stage of cancer. This legislation has been endorsed by several national organizations, whose letters of support I hereby submit for the record. And it is based on strong legislation already enacted in my home state of Connecticut. But women should not live or die because of geography--we owe it to women across the country to ensure that they have access to the information they need to make informed decisions about their health. This legislation will help the women in our lives and their health care professionals access critical, potentially life-saving information, and I urge my colleagues to support our efforts. October 3, 2011. Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative DeLauro: On behalf of the Board of Directors of Are You Dense, Inc., we are pleased to support the Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act of 2011. The grassroots breast density information effort began in Connecticut in 2004 when I was diagnosed with an advanced stage breast cancer after a decade of ``normal'' mammograms. When I questioned my breast surgeon why my cancer was detected at such an advanced stage, since I received a ``normal'' mammography report a few months earlier, her response was that I have dense breast tissue. This was the first time that I was informed about this critically important aspect of my breast health and what dense breast tissue meant to me for access to an Early Cancer Diagnosis. I began working with Connecticut State Senators Joan Hartley and Joseph Crisco and, with their unwavering support for Early Detection for women with dense breast tissue, Connecticut established itself as a leader in state legislation for breast density notification and expanded insurance coverage for women with dense breast tissue. I am so proud that you are leading the federal efforts to change the outcome of an advanced cancer to an early stage cancer for women across the country with dense breast tissue. Research for more than a decade demonstrates that women with dense breast tissue' are at increased risk of breast cancer and have only a 40% chance of having their cancer detected by mammography alone. As density increases, the sensitivity of mammogram to ``see'' cancer decreases. Breast density is one of the strongest predictors of the failure of mammography screening to detect cancer. A Harris Poll found that less than 1 in ten women team about their breast density from their health care providers and ninety-five percent of women do not know their breast density even though it is one of the highest risk factors for breast cancer. The Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act of 2011 will correct this fatal flaw in the Early Detection of Breast Cancer by standardizing the communication of breast density to the patient across our country. Breast Density notification will help bring about a new era in which women, in conjunction with their doctors, can make fully informed choices about their breast screening and personal surveillance. Thank you for giving Are You Dense, Inc. the opportunity to support this important and timely legislation. Sincerely, Nancy M. Cappello, Ph.D., President and Founder, Are You Dense, Inc.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this important bipartisan resolution that will help to raise awareness of the warning signs for ovarian cancer. This is an important vote that, put simply, will save lives of women across the country. While we have made considerable progress in recent years in the war against cancer, thanks to the hard work of biomedical researchers at NIH and elsewhere, ovarian cancer has been a stubborn enemy. It remains the fifth most common cancer among women, and one I myself suffered from 25 years ago. It causes more deaths than any other female reproductive cancer. More than 15,000 of our friends and family are expected to perish from it this year. Perhaps the saddest thing about these grim numbers is that some of these deaths are readily preventable. We know that women who catch their ovarian cancer at an earlier stage are over three times more likely to survive the disease than those who do not. Sadly, over 60% of the women diagnosed with ovarian cancer between 1999 and 2006 fell into this latter category. That's why it is so important that we pass this resolution, and continue to help raise awareness about ovarian cancer. Of course, there are other steps we should also take. We need to re-fund Johanna's Law this year, which, despite strong bipartisan support, was zeroed out in the 2011 budget. And we need to continue to support the congressional- directed medical research program for ovarian cancer research at the Department of Defense, which was cut by 20% in the House's 2012 Defense Appropriations Bill. But today, we can do our part by standing up against ovarian cancer, and passing this resolution. Cancer is indiscriminate. It does not care about your age, your family, your sex, your race, your religion, or your political party. It reminds us that we are all human and vulnerable. And that we must all come together--man and woman, young and old, Democrat and Republican--to fight it on every front. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and to help put an end to deaths from ovarian cancer.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. The Board also enforces laws that protect employers and third parties against practices by unions considered to be unfair or harmful. In fact, the NLRB charter and structure were amended to meet Republican concerns in 1947 by the Taft- Hartley legislation. Today the NLRB is simply doing its job, finding fair remedies for employees and employers in workplace disputes and prosecuting violations when they occur. Nothing radical about the NLRB. What's radical is the anti-union message that this majority continues to try to foist on the American people. They've tried to slash funding for the NLRB. They've tried several times to repeal Davis-Bacon. They're trying now to severely limit workers' fundamental right to organize collectively. The bill is not a serious attempt to restore jobs, restore economic growth, or address budget deficits. It's about marginalizing the labor movement--and with it the capacity for working people to find fairness in the workplace. It will harm middle class families already dealing with a tough economy. It will grease the wheels for companies to move jobs overseas. I urge my colleagues to stand with American workers and vote against this rule.

Ms. DeLAURO. Let's be clear. Let's talk about South Carolina for a second. No one has mentioned this. South Carolina is a right-to-work State. What does that mean? It guts the ability of workers to organize and to form unions to fight for higher wages and safer workplaces. Why do you think Boeing was going to South Carolina? Because they thought it was going to be worse for them or better for them? A right-to-work State that guts unions, that's why they went. Millions of Americans are working today and they're looking for work. They're struggling to keep their homes. They are out of work. They're not working. And yet we are debating legislation that tries, once again, to eviscerate unions, accelerate that race to the bottom. This bill does nothing to create good, well-paying jobs here in America. It guts the regulatory powers of the National Labor Relations Board. It legalizes runaway shops. It allows companies to fire employees trying to start a union. It's a right-to-work State, and actually makes it easier to ship jobs overseas. None of this is what our economy needs right now. It's like what we have seen from Republican governors in States like Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana. This legislation represents yet another front in the majority's ideological assault against workers' rights all across the country. I represent a community where the right to organize was hard won at the dress shops, where my mother sewed collars for pennies, at the gun factories, the aerospace industry, the government offices, and the great universities of my state. The families of my district know from hard-won experience that labor unions fight for employee rights, higher standards, greater equality, security in work and retirement. They help ensure that workplaces and politics are driven by the dreams and the aspirations of working people, not by corporate power and the narrow agenda of the elites. Unions were instrumental in forming the broad-based middle class in this country, and thanks to decades of systematic efforts by companies to deny their rights, as well as misguided trickle-down policies that never do trickle down, union membership has fallen in our country. Middle class workers have been squeezed. Their wages have stagnated, their benefits cut, their job security weakened, their wage and hour protections have been violated, and all the while, income inequality has steadily risen in this Nation, to the point where even as over 15 percent of the population today lives in poverty, 1 percent of people now make 23 percent of income in America. This Republican majority is trying to go for the killing blow. They, once again, attempt here to make a bogey man of the NLRB. The Board's function is only to defend the rights that we consider fundamental, the right to form a union, the right to be represented by that union in dealings with employers, and the right to be free from retaliation from doing so.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to extend my sincere congratulations to the administrators and staff of Fair Haven Community Health Center as they celebrate their 40th Anniversary. Over the last four decades, the Fair Haven Community Health Center has provided quality, affordable health care to some of our community's most vulnerable families. In doing so, they have become an invaluable resource to hundreds, earning a well-deserved reputation for ensuring that health care is available regardless of ability to pay. This is an outstanding organization and I am proud to join community leaders and residents alike in commemorating this remarkable milestone. In 1971 a small group of dedicated nurses, doctors, students, and neighborhood volunteers, under the leadership of a community advocacy agency called the Alliance for Latin American Progress, opened the Fair Haven Clinic in a local elementary school. Two nights a week, the Clinic served adults and children on a walk-in basis for minor ailments, immunizations, and family planning services. With a budget of only five thousand dollars, made available through a grant from the Greater New Haven Community Foundation, they were able to accommodate over five hundred visits in their first year. It was clear that families were not only in need of these basic services, but of expanded health care as well. Over the next decade the Clinic worked to expand the services that they were able to provide to more comprehensive primary health care. Today, the Fair Haven Community Health Center has grown into one of our community's most respected non-profit primary health care organizations, providing comprehensive health care--from prenatal and pediatric to adolescent, adult and geriatric care--to hundreds of residents every year. The administrators and staff at Fair Haven Community Health Center continue to seek every opportunity that will allow them to provide quality health care to those families who are either uninsured or underinsured. With the growing number of those families who find themselves uninsured or underinsured, the Center has seen demands in the community rise exponentially. I have had many opportunities to visit the Center and am always impressed with the amount of good work that they are able to do with the limited funding that they receive. The Center not only provides health care services, but they have developed and implemented extraordinary outreach and education programs which benefit community residents. Perhaps most importantly, the Center provides the community with the security of knowing that their families will have access to the quality health care they need without the fear of the financial burden of excessive medical bills. I would be remiss if I did not extend a special note of thanks and congratulations to the Center's Executive Director, Katrina Clark. Katrina has been at the helm of this organization for all but its first two years. It has been under her leadership and because of her vision that the Center has grown so successfully over the last four decades. I have had the privilege to know Katrina for many years. Her commitment to the people of the Fair Haven community is only equaled by her determination to ensure that they have access to quality, affordable health care. She is an extraordinary woman and I consider myself fortunate to benefit from her counsel and friendship. Over the course of their history, the Fair Haven Community Health Center has developed strong partnerships that have helped them to continue to expand their services to meet the ever-changing needs of the community. I am proud of the work that we have been able to do together and am honored to have this opportunity to extend my warmest congratulations on their 40th Anniversary as well as my very best wishes for many more years of successful work in our community.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to join the many who have gathered to celebrate ``A Century of Building Connecticut''-- the 100th Anniversary of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 478. Over the last century, the members of Local 478 have been an integral part of Connecticut's construction industry, involved in some of the most important and influential projects in our state. The proud members of Local 478 work tirelessly to make the Union the premier supplier of heavy equipment operators, mechanics, and support personnel in Connecticut. Local 478 began as most trade unions did--with a group of workers banding together to negotiate safer working conditions and better pay. The 18 original members of Local 478 were granted a charter by the International Union of Steam Engineers in September of 1911. Over the course of its history, Local 478 was also granted several other charters, including the Hoisting and Portable Charter, the Journeyman and Apprentice Charter, as well as the 478B, 478C, 478D and 478E charters--all of which represent the various skills and crafts of today's membership. One hundred years later, Local 478 continues to serve the interests of their membership. From its humble beginnings, Local 478 has grown to represent more than four thousand members and it has ensured that each of its members and their families have access to state-of-the-art training, fair wages and benefits, and a secure retirement. These are protections that these hard-working men and women rightly deserve. Their work to provide and maintain our state's infrastructure strengthens our communities and improves the quality of life for all Connecticut residents. From the inception of the Merritt Parkway, through the damming of the Naugatuck Valley, to the building of Connecticut's tallest structure and one of the world's largest casinos, the men and women of Local 478 have proudly worked day in and day out to quite literally build Connecticut. As they celebrate this remarkable milestone in their history, I am proud to stand and extend my sincere congratulations to the leadership and membership of International Union Operating Local 478--past and present--for their many invaluable contributions to our community. I have and continue to be proud to work with them in their endeavors to enrich our state as well as the lives of their membership. Happy 100th Anniversary!

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Stanley Welch, a member of my staff who has been with me from the beginning, as he retires after almost twenty-eight years of federal service. Stanley has dedicated a lifetime to public service and has served the New Haven community in a variety of capacities--all of which have enriched the City and improved the quality of life for its residents. Stanley has been a member of my staff for more than twenty years, though I have known him for much longer. We first met during Frank Logue's first campaign for Mayor where he was involved in coordinating the roving canvass--a get out the vote initiative that is used by candidates throughout New Haven still today. When I was first elected to Congress, I asked Stan to join my team and he was an invaluable resource as we started up the District Office, hired staff, and began our work in constituent services. Stanley understood the importance of constituent services in the District and, over the years, he has been a mentor to many new staff members--offering them guidance and support as they began their own careers in federal service. As Deputy District Director and casework supervisor he has played an integral role in ensuring that the District Office has run smoothly and that our constituents have had access to federal resources and assistance in resolving issues with federal agencies. Stanley himself worked on issues concerning veterans and over the course of his career he developed an expertise in this area. His presence in my office will certainly be missed. Born in upstate New York and raised in the greater Boston area, Stanley came to New Haven in 1962. In the nearly five decades since he came to our community, Stanley's work has touched the lives of thousands. He was a teacher in the New Haven public school system, a case manager with the City of New Haven's Department of Human Services, vocational counselor with the Greater New Haven Opportunities Industrial Center as well as the Director of a Connecticut State sheltered workshop for mentally challenged adults, Director and Education Coordinator of the Vanguard Teen Center in Newhallville, and served as the first Director of the Community Action Agency of New Haven. Stanley began his career in federal service with my predecessor, Congressman Bruce Morrison, and has spent nearly thirty years assisting the people of Connecticut's 3rd Congressional District with difficulties they have had with federal agencies. In each of these endeavors, Stanley was looking to make a difference in the lives of some of our most vulnerable citizens. In addition to his professional contributions to the community, Stanley has also dedicated innumerable hours to local civic and service organizations. For more than twenty years he has served on the Board of Directors of Columbus House, Inc., a non-profit organization dedicated to serving the homeless and those at risk of homelessness, as well as the Hill Development Corporation, a local non-profit organization dedicated to the revitalization of New Haven's Hill neighborhood. He has also been involved with the United Way Campaign cabinet and was the first Chairman of the Combined Federal Campaign of Western Central Connecticut. Stanley has been recognized by a myriad of organizations for his efforts on their behalf including MaKeLa Incorporated, the Marine Cadets of America, Youth Business Enterprises, the Greater New Haven Youth Continuum, the Hamden Black Democratic Club, and Casa Otonal. It is not often that you find an individual who dedicates so much of themselves to serving others. Throughout his professional career and in his personal time, Stanley has sought every opportunity to do just that. On a more personal note, Stanley is not just a member of my staff--he is family. I cannot thank him enough for all that he has done over the years. Today, as he celebrates his retirement, I am proud to extend my very best wishes to Stanley, his companion of more than twenty years, Linda Thorpe; his five sons Stanley, Jr., Jordon, Julian, Kwad, and Jamal; as well as his fifteen grandchildren; and two great- grandchildren. I wish them all the best for many more years of health and happiness.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join the United States Marine Corps and the Marine Cadets of America in extending my sincere congratulations to Col. Adele E. Hodges as she retires after 33 years of dedicated service to the Marines. A Connecticut native, Colonel Hodges has demonstrated a unique dedication to the service of our nation and I am proud to have this opportunity to recognize her outstanding military career. Following her graduation from Southern Connecticut State College, Colonel Hodges enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in June of 1978 and less than a year later was accepted into the Enlisted Commissioning Program. Beginning her career in a time when few women were entering the military, Colonel Hodges worked diligently to rise through the ranks and has built a reputation and record of service that is enviable by any standard. Her assignments have taken her to Japan, Hawaii, Louisiana, California, and Virginia. She has served at the U.S. Naval War College in Rhode Island, the NATO Joint Headquarters North East and the NATO Joint Warfare Centre in Stavanger, Norway. She concluded her career assigned to Headquarters United States Marine Corps Office of the Inspector General as the Director of Readiness Assessments. Throughout her military career, Colonel Hodges has been recognized with the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with 3 Stars, and a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal. To say that Colonel Hodges has broken through barriers would be an understatement and her home state of Connecticut could not be more proud of the extraordinary officer she has become. An organization in my home town of New Haven, Connecticut, the Marine Cadets of America, owes a debt of gratitude to Colonel Hodges. The Marine Cadets is a program that provides at-risk youth with training and activities designed to promote awareness of the dangers of drug/ substance abuse and promote pride both in one's self and in one's community. It was through the assistance and support of Colonel Hodges that the Marine Cadets of America was formally recognized by the Corps--a designation that the organization had been seeking for several years. For the many marines that volunteer for the program as well as the cadets whose lives are changed by their participation, this recognition was extremely meaningful. I am honored to have this opportunity to thank Colonel Hodges for the personal commitment she gave to this effort. For both her exemplary service to our nation in the United States Marine Corps as well as her personal contributions to our community, I am proud to stand today to pay tribute to Col. Adele E. Hodges. Hers is a legacy that will continue to inspire others for generations to come and I extend my very best wishes to her for many more years of health and happiness as she embarks on this new chapter of her life.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. We are now 4 days away from an historic, unprecedented, and needless default that could grind this economy to a halt. And yet, even as they show their disarray to the entire world, this House Republican majority is continuing to hold our Nation hostage to press their radical agenda. Worse, there's only 4 days to go. They're moving in the wrong direction. The Speaker should have taken yesterday's rebuke by his own party as a clear indication that he needs to go back to the drawing board and pass a debt ceiling increase that both parties can sign on to. Instead, he and the Republican majority have doubled down on ideology and dangerous brinksmanship requiring that a balanced budget constitutional amendment--a total nonstarter--that would threaten Medicare and Social Security be sent to the States before a second debt ceiling increase is approved. This ensures another Republican-created crisis in only a few short months. This bill slashes $917 billion from critical public investments: education, infrastructure, research, law enforcement, food safety. And even though the spending on these programs is less than what it was under the Reagan and the first Bush administration, in fact members of the majority even balked at $17 billion in Pell Grant funding in the bill because to some of them helping Americans go to college is ``the welfare of the 21st century.'' We know the deficits have grown because revenues are lower than they've been in the last 60 years thanks to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and the two wars that have been put on the Nation's credit card. With 14 million unemployed, we should be focused on creating jobs, putting Americans back to work. It's time for the majority to quit playing political games, start acting responsibly with the stewardship of our economy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Start to work on what the American people need most right now--that's jobs.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we are 5 days away from a historic, unprecedented, and needless default. Instead of acting responsibly and in a bipartisan way to raise the debt ceiling, the Republican majority continues to hold the American economy hostage to press their agenda. Even though the debt ceiling was raised seven times under President Bush, even though 110 current Members of the majority have voted to raise the debt ceiling in the past, the majority continues its dangerous game of brinksmanship. Included in this bill is $917 billion in cuts mostly to critical public investments like education, infrastructure, biomedical research, law enforcement, and food safety. They will all be slashed. And yet these programs, which are called discretionary programs, they are only 3.1 percent higher than they were 5 years ago, less than what it was under both Ronald Reagan and the first Bush administration. It is disingenuous for this majority to pretend that these public investments, critical to job creation and economic growth, are the source of our deficit problems. The primary reason the deficits have grown is because revenues are lower than they have been in 60 years--15 percent lower thanks to the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy--and because we initiated two wars on the Nation's credit card. If the majority was serious about deficit reduction, they would allow for additional revenue by asking the wealthiest Americans and corporate special interests to share in the sacrifice rather than seeking to protect them--which they do--in this legislation. The majority is not serious. This bill is not about deficit reduction. It is about using the threat of default to enact a radical agenda, one that will cost jobs and undermine the American economy, where middle class families would have an opportunity for a decent retirement. In a few months they are coming back, $1.6 trillion in cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This form of hostage taking is not responsible leadership. It's the wrong direction for our country. I urge my colleagues to vote against this incredible, outrageous piece of legislation, and I call on the majority to quit playing political games.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the Horn of Africa is currently suffering from the worst drought in 60 years, one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent memory. For both moral and national security reasons, it demands a strong, clear, sustained response from this institution. Last week, famine was declared in parts of southern Somalia. This means acute malnutrition rates among children now exceed 30 percent, that more than two people per 10,000 die every day, and that people are not able to access food or other basic necessities. One out of every five households in famine-declared areas have no food at all. The malnutrition rates in Somalia are currently the highest in the world. In the last few months, tens of thousands of Somalis, the majority of them children, have died as a result of causes related to malnutrition. In some of the most affected areas, an estimated 310,000 children are acutely malnourished. The worst may be yet to come. Eight million people are in need of assistance in Ethiopia and Kenya. Unless the global community and humanitarian agencies intervene now, it's predicted that the entire south of Somalia will face famine within the next 2 months. Nearly a thousand people are arriving daily at overcrowded refugee camps in Kenya and Ethiopia. Many have journeyed for weeks to get there. According to Josette Sheeran, executive director of the U.N. World Food Program, the roads to these camps ``are becoming roads of death. Over half the women I talked to had to leave children to die or had children die. In the Horn of Africa, we could lose a generation.'' And the troubles do not end there. Sexual violence against women in these already overcrowded refugee camps is on the rise. This crisis didn't happen overnight. The eastern Horn of Africa is prone to chronic food insecurity. What is more, below-average rainfall in late 2010 and the spring of 2011 anticipated drought conditions, which have been dramatically worsened by the fact Somalia has not had a central government since 1991. Drought conditions have also progressively worsened throughout the year in Ethiopia and Kenya. To address the ongoing crisis, Secretary Clinton recently announced that the United States would provide another $28 million in aid for people in Somalia and for Somali refugees in Kenya, in addition to the over $431 million in food and nonfood emergency assistance already provided for the region this year. It's a good start. But we need to ensure that the appropriate U.S. funds are available to address this crisis this year and that Congress provides enough funding to maintain our ability to really address these crises. It is a matter of life and death for the most vulnerable people in the world. We do this not just out of moral responsibility, although that should be compelling enough. It is also because our national security interests need to be represented to maintain the capability to combat food insecurity in the Horn of Africa and other critical regions around the world. It's about our national security. Anti-hunger programs can help this crisis and strengthen international diplomacy. Yet, unfortunately, we have seen the money for international food aid cut back severely. When we fight hunger and poverty, we undercut the recruiting base of those who would threaten us--the terrorists who would threaten us. Let me conclude by saying we know what we can do to help. We have the ability to alleviate hunger and suffering of millions in the Horn of Africa. We know that doing so is the right thing to do. It makes us safer in the long run. We lack the political will to do the right thing. I urge my colleagues, support funding for these critical programs in the coming budget for the millions of suffering in Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia, for the humanitarian crisis of the future, for the continued safety and the security of the United States.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to a reckless and unconscionable Interior appropriations bill put forward by the House Republican majority. Once again, they have put a radical, out-of- touch agenda and the desires of Big Oil and big polluters before the interests of the American people, the need to create jobs, and the health of our environment. This appropriations bill is more than just a danger to the health and safety of American families. It represents the worst assault on clean air and clean water in our Nation's history. This legislation slashes funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by 18 percent. The majority has shown time and time again that it opposes any environmental regulation that might hurt the bottom line of polluters. But it doesn't stop there. This legislation also slashes the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which helps States finance wastewater system improvements by providing 55 percent of the resources, meaning that America's waterways will be put at risk of sewage and urban runoff pollution, and good middle class jobs will be lost. And it cuts the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which protects national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges from development, by 78 percent. In addition, this partisan legislation includes at least 38 policy riders that, for purely ideological reasons, would harm American families and the environment. The bill would prohibit the EPA from implementing rules to protect communities from power plant pollution. It blocks the EPA from restoring Clean Water Act protections to more than half of our Nation's streams and 20 million acres of wetlands, meaning the drinking water of 117 million Americans is put at risk. It blocks the EPA from moving forward on fuel efficiency standards that will reduce foreign oil imports and cut pollution. It blocks the EPA from regulating carbon pollution at power plants, refineries, and industrial sites. It even stops indefinitely long overdue standards to control air pollution from toxic mercury, endangering pregnant women, infants and children. This legislation would open up more of our coastline to offshore drilling and 1 million acres of land around the Grand Canyon, a national treasure, to toxic uranium mining. Mr. Chairman, there was a time when the Republican Party was known as defenders of the environment. It was a Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt, who inaugurated the National Forest Service and who worked to conserve 230 million acres of American land, including the Grand Canyon, which is now put at risk. He called the canyon, and I quote, a natural wonder, which is in kind absolutely unparalleled throughout the rest of the world. ``Leave it as it is,'' he said. ``You cannot improve on it. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it.'' It was a Republican President, Richard Nixon, who signed significant expansions of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and who brought life to the Environmental Protection Agency. Twenty years later, another Republican President, George Bush, Sr., expanded the Clean Air Act even further to protect Americans' health. Yet today, a Republican majority brings us an Interior appropriations bill which undoes all of this good work, which endangers American families and threatens to do permanent and irrevocable damage to the environment. I urge my colleagues in the majority, return to your roots to once again put the American people before the interests of polluters, and to oppose this disastrous legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the majority's attempt to undercut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau just as it is set to open its doors. Yet again, this majority is siding with Wall Street, credit card companies and predatory lenders and against the interests of the American people. Three years ago, we suffered an economic meltdown that was brought on by greed, corruption, and well-documented incidents of predatory behavior. We are still dealing with the economic ramifications of that collapse today. People all across America are losing their jobs and fighting for their homes. That is why, as part of the financial reforms Democrats passed last year, we created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to reintroduce transparency and accountability in the financial sector, to put an end to predatory lending practices that were abused by the banks and mortgage lenders to precipitate this crisis, and to protect the public from future malfeasance. But now this Republican majority wants to undo all of that hard work and put Wall Street back in the driver's seat. The bill eliminates the bureau's independence and gives the regulators, who missed the financial crisis, it gives them veto power over its actions, all to ensure that nothing of consequence gets done to rein in Wall Street. In order to promote gridlock and guarantee the bureau is unable to curb the abuses that led to the financial crisis, the bill before us also removes the position of director and installs a five-member commission at the head of the agency, while delaying consumer protection authorities until a commission chair is named. This comes as Republicans have constantly attacked the bureau's architect, Elizabeth Warren, and made clear that they will not approve any nominee for director, including President Obama's nomination of Richard Cordray last week. We are not here to represent the interests of Wall Street, of their banks, predatory mortgage lenders, or credit card companies, as my Republican colleagues are choosing to do, by smothering this new agency in its crib. We are here to represent the American people. That is what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been designed to do. I urge my colleagues, put Main Street before Wall Street. Stand up for ordinary, hardworking, middle class families, oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the legislation before us today. If we do not act in 2 weeks, the United States will, for the first time in history, default on its debt. With the economy in a vulnerable position right now, we should be working to create jobs. Instead of acting responsibly and in a bipartisan way to raise the debt ceiling, the Republican majority has decided to make this a form of hostage- taking to press their agenda. Congress has always paid for its past financial commitments with Republican majorities agreeing to raise the debt ceiling seven times during the Bush administration. Everyone understands the long-term challenge posed by budget deficits, and President Obama and Democrats support a balanced approach to addressing that challenge. Yet the ideological and extreme bill before us today does not address the number one concern of the American public, jobs, but rather seeks to implement an agenda that will, in fact, destroy jobs and the social safety net, ends Medicare, and reduces the Social Security benefits that our seniors have earned and deserve. Rather than making investments to create jobs and economic growth, the Republican majority is proposing cuts which will lead to a loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, even as we are mired in unacceptably high unemployment. With this bill, the Republicans choose to put in place a spending cap that will cement in law the Republican budget that chooses to end Medicare, places the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of the middle class and the most vulnerable. And, finally, the Republican majority is choosing to hold hostage an increase in the debt ceiling to the approval of an amendment that will make it impossible to raise revenue. What do I mean? It will make it impossible to end the subsidies to Big Oil, make it impossible to close the loopholes that allow corporations to ship their jobs overseas, or abuse tax havens that allow them to pay almost nothing in Federal taxes. To achieve deficit reduction, they will end Medicare, implement deep cuts to Social Security and other programs that are critical to the middle class. Instead, what they need to do is to go after the 12 largest corporations in this Nation. The Citizens for Tax Justice has said that those corporations pay a negative 1\1/2\ percent tax on $171 billion in profits and about $64 billion in tax subsidies. You want to do something to balance the budget and make a deal with deficit reduction? Go after those corporations that are paying zero in taxes instead of going after middle class Americans or seniors who rely on Medicare and who rely on Social Security. Mr. Speaker, this Republican agenda undermines America as a country where middle class American families have an opportunity for a decent retirement. Oppose this outrageous piece of legislation.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, included amongst a multitude of misguided policies in this bill the Republican majority has on the floor today is the rescinding of high-speed rail funds that would otherwise create good middle class jobs, strengthen our economy, allow us to build a 21st century infrastructure that we need to compete with the other economic power centers around the world. Over 6 months in the majority and my Republican colleagues have proved very capable of ending Medicare, rolling back health care reforms, namely for women, and choosing to reduce the deficit on the backs of working middle class families and the most vulnerable. One thing they have chosen to do is to zero out job creation. And, in fact, by cutting funding for high-speed rail projects in this bill, the majority is threatening as many as 60,000 jobs. This is the majority's answer to last week's extremely disappointing jobs report that showed that we are mired in unacceptably high 9.2 percent unemployment after adding only 18,000 jobs in June, with a construction sector that has 16.3 percent of its workers unemployed. This is the majority's answer to the 14 million unemployed in this country, real people, real families looking to wait their way through this crisis. In Connecticut, the majority's decision to rescind a $30 million investment--and I might tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--this $30 million has been obligated. It is an investment in the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield line and would seriously limit the ability to expand one of the best intercity passenger rail networks in the country. The line represents a critical component of a larger regional plan for passenger rail to integrate the New England rail system, connect it to New York, the middle-Atlantic States and to Canada. The improvements that would be made with the investments my colleagues on the other side are seeking to eliminate are essential to meeting the needs of the entire region and achieving the benefits of the Federal and State investments that have already been made there. High-speed rail is desperately needed in Connecticut. This is the most heavily trafficked commuter region in the country. New England's traffic has increased two to three times faster than its population since 1990, and 80 percent of the Connecticut commuters drive to work alone. When it's completed, the line is expected to reduce the number of vehicles on the road by approximately 4,000 cars a day, saving a billion gallons of fossil fuel a year and reducing carbon emissions over that time by 10,000 tons. Just as important, the line has been a high priority for Connecticut, for its Representatives on both sides of the aisle for many years. It means opportunities for economic development and expansion throughout our State. But expanding the economy, creating jobs is simply not a priority for the majority. They appear perfectly content to allow us to fall behind our global competitors like China, with its plan to invest a trillion dollars in high-speed rail, highways and other infrastructure in 5 years. And the short-sightedness is further exemplified by what has been put forward this week in a $230 billion 6-year surface transportation bill that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce calls unacceptable as the cuts will destroy, rather than support, existing jobs, which would be devastating to construction and related industries, leading to a less competitive economy and a drag on the GDP due to underperforming infrastructure. Now, I want to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I have a great appreciation for disaster assistance, a great appreciation for the commercial value of the Mississippi River. I am there. I have been there for disaster assistance. Now, if you don't want to do an emergency declaration, then let me tell you where you can get some of the money from in order to do this: $40 billion to the oil industry every year in a tax subsidy. Nobody here believes that they are suffering as the farmers in our country are suffering. They don't need money for the levees. They don't need any money at all; but, no, the other side doesn't want to take any money from that $41 billion to do something about those who are suffering in these States due to natural disaster. Or what about the $8 billion we provide to multinational corporations to take their jobs overseas? Let's take that money and use it for the people of this great Nation who are in difficult straits, difficult times and their jobs, yes, and their levees need to be dredged. Let's get that money to the Army Corps of Engineers. Finally, we support Brazilian cotton farmers. We give them $147 million every single year. I suggest we take that money from the Brazilian cotton farmers and spend it on the folks in our country who are in desperate need. Don't take it from high-speed rail. Don't commit us to planned obsolescence.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest pride that I rise today to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Stratford, Connecticut's native son, Javier Colon, the winner of the first season of television's ``The Voice.'' Javier has an extraordinary talent and I am honored to join his hometown community of Stratford in congratulating him on his success. Those who knew Javier as he was growing up in Stratford knew that he was destined for success. As a student at Bunnell High School, he was known as a performer--acting in many school plays and standing out in the choir. He pursued his dream as a singer-songwriter, attending the Hart Music School in West Hartford, Connecticut and playing locally-- solo at Starbucks in Bishop's Corner and fronting EmcQ at the Arch Street Tavern. He even self-produced an album last year. Javier took a risk when he auditioned for ``The Voice''--taking time off from the job he was holding to support his family--but it was a risk he had to take to realize his dream. In its first season ``The Voice,'' the NBC vocal competition, invited talent from across the country to compete on live television for a chance at a cash prize and recording contract. Javier was one of thousands who chose to audition and he battled his way through three additional stages of competition and in the end, his unique style and renditions of Cyndi Lauper's ``Time After Time,'' Ben E. King's ``Stand by Me,'' and Coldplay's ``Fix You'' won the hearts of the shows judges and the American public to become ``America's Voice.'' Throughout the competition, Javier said that his inspiration was his two girls--that he was doing it for them, so that they could have a better life. As they grow older, they will certainly be proud of all that he has achieved. Javier has made us all proud. In fact, in Connecticut, week after week, hundreds would gather in bars, restaurants, and living rooms to cheer him on. His dedication to his singing and his commitment to the hard work it takes to succeed has inspired countless people, not only in Connecticut, but across the country to pursue their own dreams. Today, the Stratford community will gather to welcome him home and wish him well as he enjoys this remarkable achievement. I am honored to stand today to extend my sincere congratulations to Javier Colon, his parents, Migdalea and Pablo, as well as his wife, Maureen, and two daughters, Solana and Amaia. I can only imagine what a special time this must be for them and I wish them all the best for many more years of health, happiness, and success.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed rollcall vote No. 502 on Representative Barbara Lee's amendment to the 2012 Defense Appropriations Act to ``strike $33,000,124,000 from title IX and increase the Spending Reduction Account by the same amount'' in order to redeploy U.S. armed forces out of Afghanistan by the end of 2012. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to this bill because it puts the interests of Brazilian farmers above the very real needs of American women and children. It leaves the very next section of this bill, section 743, subject to a point of order. As everyone knows, the Women, Infants, and Children program provides nutrition assistance grants to States for low-income, pregnant, breast- feeding, and postpartum women, infants, and children up to the age of five. It serves 9 million mothers and young children nationwide, including 58,000 in my State of Connecticut. Nearly half of the babies born in the United States every year participate in this program. It is a short-term intervention, but it can help to provide a lifetime of good nutrition and health behaviors. While in our subcommittee, this appropriations bill slashed WIC funding by $650 million. That means that as many as 300,000 women and children will be turned away and forced to go hungry; and, in fact, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack has warned our subcommittee that this number could be as high as 750,000. To alleviate this glaring shortfall, my amendment to restore $147 million to the WIC program, paid for with $147 million currently provided to the Brazilian Cotton Institute, passed with a bipartisan vote during full committee consideration. But the rule for this bill arbitrarily took away the pay-for and, instead, requires that $147 million be cut out from WIC or other programs in this bill already woefully underfunded. What are we doing here? We are giving the money back to Brazilian farmers. The majority has decided that is more important. Where is our sense of justice to women and children in the United States? To be sure, there are many egregious cuts in this appropriations bill and not just to WIC. Other vital nutrition programs like the Commodities Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program, school lunches, food safety, the CFTC, international food aid--all of these basic, commonsense priorities of the American people take a huge hit in this legislation, mainly so the majority can preserve oil company subsidies and tax breaks for the rich. To their credit, even the Republicans on our committee saw this $147 million handout to Brazilian farmers as a bridge too far. So they and Democrats alike overwhelmingly approved the transfer of these funds to WIC--until the Republican leadership stepped in and negated our vote. We cannot be taking food out of hungry people's mouths here at home in order to subsidize overseas cotton production. It makes no sense. As my colleague Mr. Flake noted at the committee markup, it is quite ironic that we would subsidize Brazilian agriculture so that we can continue to excessively subsidize agriculture here. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to abide by the overwhelming vote of our subcommittee, to stand up for American women and children, and to reject this bill. This is not what we voted for and not what the American people want. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this shortsighted and I believe dangerous amendment that will increase suffering and misery all around the world and put American men and women in danger. And my colleagues have addressed that issue as well. The appropriations legislation before us is already remarkably stingy with regards to international food aid. It cuts the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program by 10 percent below the President's request and Food for Peace by an astonishing $650 million. It is a 38 percent reduction. Now Mr. Broun proposes to zero out McGovern-Dole entirely. This is a program that, as you can tell by its name, has been a hallmark of bipartisan leadership for over a decade now. It is a linchpin in our diplomatic efforts in developing nations. Make no mistake. Cutting McGovern-Dole endangers our national security. Zeroing out this program, as this amendment calls for, would needlessly put the safety and the security of American families at risk. For the first time in history, over 1 billion people--one in six--are undernourished worldwide. Every 6 seconds, a child dies because of hunger and related causes. And this hunger forces people into desperate acts and dangerous pacts. Famine and starvation create the conditions for militant extremism, the very extremism our troops fight in Afghanistan and around the world. And so McGovern-Dole, and the international food aid it provides, is a crucial front in our efforts to combat global terror. We fight hunger and poverty, and we undercut the recruiting base of those who would threaten us. As former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger wrote in The Los Angeles Times, ``Ensuring that no child goes to school hungry is the single greatest investment we can make in building prosperous, healthy, and stable societies.'' McGovern-Dole is that investment, and it works. Operating in 28 countries around the world, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, McGovern-Dole provides at least one nutritious meal each day to vulnerable children in schools. It has shown demonstrated success in both reducing hunger and increasing school enrollment and attendance, especially, as my colleagues pointed out, for girls. Otherwise, little girls in these countries don't get any education, and they don't get any food. Last month, the GAO released a report on McGovern-Dole, and it called for strengthening monitoring by the USDA, accelerating the timeframe of reporting. It did not, however, call into question any of the objectives of the program. This program works. Since becoming a permanent program in the 2002 farm bill, it has reduced hunger and violence, increased education and nutrition, and has become a vital element in our international diplomacy. Zeroing out the program, as this amendment demands, would not only destroy all these many benefits for America and the developing world, it would mean 5 million kids will go hungry again, 5 million children. And yet, even as this amendment threatens to force millions into starvation, somehow the majority's budget still finds money for oil company subsidies and tax breaks for millionaires. Cutting this funding is shortsighted in the extreme. McGovern-Dole works. It works for America. It works for developing nations around the world. It moves children from starvation to education. And it undercuts the recruiting ability of those who would do America harm. I urge my colleagues, stand with our troops. Stand against hunger worldwide and oppose this disastrous amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.