Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, once again, instead of working to create jobs, grow the economy, reduce the deficit and strengthen the middle class, the majority is spending its time engaged in ideological lawlessness disrespectful of the U.S. Constitution, and all because of their political base and to benefit their political base. This bizarre attempt to deem and pass into law their reckless budget is not only hypocritical and blatantly unconstitutional; where is the statement of the constitutionality of this legislation? I'll ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, read the Constitution. It calls into question whether the Speaker and the Republican leadership understand how our representative democracy works, and that includes the author of this legislation. The House cannot simply close their eyes, pretend that the Senate and the President have passed and signed the bill into law. It does not work that way. When a bill actually passes the Senate, the Senate has actually passed the bill. And when the President picks up a pen and puts his name on it, and not a second before, that bill has been signed into law. No amount of magical thinking can change these simple facts. Even notwithstanding the gall of the Republicans' unconstitutional plan, the very attempt to pass a deem and pass act flies in the face of all of the pearl-clutching we heard from the majority in 2010. Then, when a simpler version of deem and pass came up during the health care debate, one that did not fly in the face of the Constitution and attempt to speak for the Senate and President, the current Speaker called it one of the most dangerous, outrageous things he had ever seen in a Congress. Majority Leader Cantor offered a privilege resolution putting the Republicans on record as against any sort of deem and pass mechanism. A year later the story has changed. No, most of all this is a diversion from the reckless cuts the majority has proposed, the slashes to Head Start, Pell Grants, Meals on Wheels, veterans, job training, medical research, all cuts that hurt middle class and working families. We are still waiting for the Republicans to cut the special interest waste, like the oil company subsidies and the tax loopholes for the richest people in the Nation. And what about those tax subsidies to those multinational corporations that take their jobs overseas? You're not starting there to cut the deficit. No, it's working families and their children that you're going after. You are taxing the patience of the American people. And you know what? You're taxing the memory of our Founding Fathers who educated us--and children in grade school today--on how a bill becomes a law. The Republican majority is playing a dangerous game. If they do not get what they want, they will shut the government down.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed the rollcall vote on amendment 548 to ``H.R. 1--Fiscal Year Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2011.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Additionally, I inadvertently cast a ``no'' vote during the rollcall vote on amendment 94 to ``H.R. 1--Fiscal Year Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2011.'' I would like to change my vote on the amendment to ``yea.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 14-day continuing resolution. The House majority is threatening to close down the government. This is brinkmanship. Their desire to engage in brinkmanship damages our economy and creates uncertainty for businesses and families. Make no mistake, the proposed budget cuts will cost jobs, 700,000 jobs by the end of 2012, according to economist Mark Zandi, who, in fact, was the chief economist for Senator John McCain in his Presidential bid. Let me be clear. I am very supportive of the removal of earmarks in this resolution. They should be cut. We understand the need for deficit reduction. The question is where do we start? Our first priority should be to go after waste and special interest spending: $40 billion to the oil industry which we are providing today, $40 billion. What about the almost $8 billion to multinational corporations who take their jobs overseas? And, yes, what about the $8 billion in agricultural subsidies? It is too bad that cutting these special interest subsidies is not the priority of the majority's resolution. Instead, this budget makes deep and reckless cuts in the areas that most impact middle class and working families. Of the $4 billion in immediate cuts put forward by this 14-day resolution, $1.4 billion comes out of Education, Health and Human Services, and out of training programs. And, yes, almost a billion dollars, a quarter of the cuts, comes out of education. Education should be one of the last places we look to cut the budget, not the first. Yes, these cuts could be achieved by eliminating four programs proposed for termination by the President, as well as eliminating funding associated with earmarks last year. But these are not the President's proposals. While he would cut some education programs, he would then reinvest those savings in other education programs considered more effective. This resolution just wipes out the funding. This resolution severely cuts efforts to reduce illiteracy, which is a serious national problem for economic, as well as human, reasons. The largest program targeted, Striving Readers, represents a consolidation and reorganization of literacy programs that was just launched in 2010. Why would the Republican majority think it is responsible to strip away funding to improve literacy in this country before it even has a chance to work? I'm particularly concerned and disappointed by the elimination of Even Start. Even Start is about breaking the cycle of poverty and illiteracy by improving educational opportunities for families. I do not agree with the President's assessment that it should be terminated, and I do not support its elimination in this resolution. This is an effective and a critical program that should be allowed to continue. I'm not the only one concerned by the consequences of this reckless budget. Three hundred leading economists have signed a letter to the President noting how these spending cuts will diminish our economic competitiveness. Goldman Sachs reported to its investors that the Republican budget will slash economic growth by 2 percent of our economic growth. That would send the unemployment numbers back over 10 percent. Americans want us to craft a budget for the remainder of the year that creates jobs, reduces the deficit, and strengthens the economy. Do we start with slashing special interests and waste like the $40 billion that we are providing in subsidies to the oil companies? And last time any of us looked, they were doing pretty well. They don't need any subsidies. Or do we start by cutting the things that help the middle class, which help our businesses, and working families with children and with seniors? This resolution increases unemployment. It will hurt our economic recovery. And I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless resolution.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the Rehberg amendment because it violates clause 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5 by proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill. According to a cost estimate received from the Congressional Budget Office, the Rehberg amendment would increase net budget authority in the bill by $2 billion in fiscal year 2012 and a total of $5.5 billion over 10 years. Let me repeat that. That is adding $5.5 billion to the deficit. And I have, in my hand here, the CBO estimate of the budgetary effects of amendment 575 to H.R. 1, a CBO document. The House rules package, adopted at the beginning of this Congress in House Resolution 5, includes the following rule in section 3(j)(3): ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill.'' According to the CBO estimate, the Rehberg amendment does, in fact, produce a net increase in budget authority and is, therefore, not in order. The majority have raised a point of order on all other amendments that violate this rule in section 3(j)(3) because they increase net budget authority; yet on this amendment by Mr. Rehberg, that is not the case. It would seem that on the question of health care, the majority is not abiding by its own rules to reduce the deficit. I ask a ruling from the Chair.

Ms. DeLAURO. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment on the point of order.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. The American people want us to work together to address their top priorities--creating jobs, turning the economy around, and reducing the deficit. The Republican majority told the American people, Vote for me, that's what we are going to do. This is a classic case of bait and switch. Their first order of business was to repeal health care reform, the results of which would add to unemployment, add to the deficit, and delay the economic recovery. And today, by denying funds for the implementation of health care, they are at it again. This amendment would take away the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act and put the insurance companies back in charge, a further demonstration of the majority's special interest priorities and an hypocrisy on job creation and deficit reduction. Repealing health care will destroy jobs in the health professions. It will slow growth by 250,000 to 400,000 jobs a year. It will increase medical spending and add nearly $2,000 to the average family insurance premium. And according to CBO, repeal would add $230 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years and $1 trillion in the second 10 years. And let me repeat that. This amendment adds billions and ultimately trillions of dollars to the deficit, and it starts next year with $2.2 billion. While my colleague will say that for the rest of this year that that isn't the case, one needs to just look at what the CBO says overall on the $5.5 billion in deficits that this would create. This is not what they promised the American people. This amendment will allow insurers to charge women 48 percent more than men for exactly the same coverage. It allows insurance companies to once again discriminate against Americans with preexisting conditions, even children with preexisting conditions. Women may again be denied coverage because they survived breast cancer or because they were a victim of domestic violence or because they had a c-section. It will deny up to 4 million small businesses $40 billion in tax credits. This amendment will increase drug costs for seniors. It will take away the 50 percent discount on brand name drugs for those who have found themselves in the doughnut hole. It will increase, also, seniors' health care costs, making lifesaving preventive services like mammograms, colonoscopies, wellness visits, blood pressure screenings, and diabetes screenings more expensive. This amendment will cost money and it will cost lives. In Connecticut 191,000 children with preexisting conditions benefit from the health care reform law. More than 540,000 seniors with Medicare coverage no longer have out-of-pocket expenses for recommended preventive services, and up to 15,400 small businesses in my district alone will benefit from these tax credits. If this amendment passes, what will happen to children with preexisting conditions, to seniors in the doughnut hole, to small business owners trying to help their employees find quality health insurance? I urge my colleagues to vote against this irresponsible amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, let me just reiterate again: This amendment would not create jobs; it would not do anything to reduce the deficit. In fact, by the CBO numbers, it would increase net budget authority in the bill by $2 billion next year, a total of $5.5 billion over the next several years. It increases the deficit. Let's keep hitting it on that point. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. CBO: Repeal of the health care bill would add $230 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years. The Rehberg amendment would add $2 billion in 2012, a total of $5.5 billion over the next several years. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Ms. DeLAURO. The Rehberg amendment increases the deficit by $2 billion in 2012, $5.5 billion over the next several years, and does nothing to create a single job. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself 30 seconds. Let me just repeat, to be absolutely clear, about what this amendment does. It does not create jobs. It adds to the deficit $2 billion next year, $5.5 billion over the next several years. It does nothing to bring the deficit down. It increases the deficit, and it puts the American people back in the hands of insurance companies. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), Democratic leader of the House.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. I do, yes.

Ms. DeLAURO. Very briefly, I yield myself 30 seconds. This amendment--this amendment--will add to the deficit in the next year--next year--$3.5 billion, and over the next several years $5.6 billion. It will not create a job and once again would put the American people back in the hands of the insurance companies without the ability to be able to get the kind of health insurance that they require to deal with any illness that may befall them. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. What we need to be doing is to focus on jobs to grow the economy and to reduce the deficit. This amendment does none of the above. Essentially what it does, it takes us back into the hands of insurance companies when they had free rein to raise rates, to reject claims and deny coverage to families and businesses who would have no recourse. It protects their CEO bonuses and their corporate profits. We need to be about the business of creating jobs. This amendment does nothing to do that and increases the deficit. It should be absolutely clear to everyone here and everywhere else what this amendment does. Point of Order