Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. How much time is left on each side?

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself 1 minute. This amendment prohibits use of funds in this act for any government contract that includes a Project Labor Agreement. The amendment is nothing more than another example of a union-busting Republican agenda. Project Labor Agreements contribute to the economy and efficiency of Federal construction projects, help keep them on time and on budget. They bring all the contractors and subcontractors to agree to a standard set of conditions from the beginning of the project. And despite all the rhetoric on the other side that PLAs increase the cost of construction projects, there is no evidence for that. Two years ago, the Economic Policy Institute reviewed a series of studies for and against prevailing wage laws and concluded that there was no adverse impact on government contract costs. Mr. Chairman, this is nothing else but a distraction. PLAs are nothing new. They have been used on some of the most famous consequential construction projects in our history: the Hoover dam bypass bridge and the projects under the Tennessee Valley Authority just to name a few. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Before we passed the Affordable Care Act, countless Americans would buy coverage they thought was comprehensive only to realize that it had huge gaps once they actually got sick. Even when the plans look similar from the outside, with comparable deductibles, copays, and so-called out-of-pocket limits, they can result in drastically different levels of out-of-pocket medical expenses, which is probably why more than 50 percent of bankruptcies in this country are because of medical debt. The Affordable Care Act created the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight to provide better information to consumers, to hold insurers accountable at the Federal level, and help States with oversight responsibility. It requires insurance to provide clear information to consumers on what is really in their policy, such as standard definitions of medical and insurance terms, because hospitalization should mean hospitalization. It requires insurance to disclose data on claims payment policies and practices, claims denial rates, medical loss ratio, and other information so that consumers can make informed choices and so regulators can make sure the rules are followed. It's also responsible for confirming that the insurance companies get approval to raise rates by more than medical inflation. In short, it dramatically increases transparency and accountability in the health insurance market.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. I must say that I think I'm in the movie ``Groundhog Day.'' How many times do we have to vote to defund the Affordable Care Act in one day? Mr. Chairman, this amendment will stop the implementation of essential health benefits. These rules will ensure that a minimum level of quality health coverage will be covered by plans available on the exchanges. We are talking about benefits related to things like hospitalization, emergency services, maternity care, newborn care, mental health care. This ensures that every plan on the exchange meets minimum standards. It protects individuals and small businesses. It allows them to pick out their plans with the confidence that they will be able to get the adequate kinds of coverage that they need. Why does the majority want to stand between consumers and the information they need? I urge my colleagues to please oppose this amendment. I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to administer the wage rate requirements under Davis-Bacon. It is yet another illustration of how the majority is making this continuing resolution a Trojan Horse, filled with ideology that irreparably harms working families. The Davis-Bacon Act ensures that workers on federally funded government contracts are paid no less than the wages paid for similar work in a community. A simple concept. Former President Bush understood this concept when he reinstated the Davis-Bacon rules for reconstruction contracts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Despite the majority's argument, the Davis-Bacon Act has no effect on total costs of construction. Study after study reveals that higher productivity makes up for any additional labor cost, essentially eliminating any cost savings if the law were repealed. If this amendment is enacted into law, we will be cheating workers of a fair wage with no cost savings to show for it. This amendment is nothing more than an attempt to accelerate a race to the bottom. It is that way of doing business which tells workers in this country ``you do not matter; your right to a decent wage does not matter; your dreams and your aspirations to do better and to provide for your family do not matter.'' All that counts is the power to extract the cheapest possible cost, the lowest labor cost, in return for the highest possible profit. This does not reflect our values as a Nation and certainly not the values that created America's middle class. Today, as we face 9 percent unemployment, wages falling, the number of families in poverty growing and increasing costs for just about everything, gutting the law that ensures a decent job and a fair wage for workers is the wrong direction. It is the very future of the middle class that is in jeopardy if we pass amendments like the King amendment and, with it, the idea that a society can act with a shared sense of purpose and with a responsibility to each other. Vote against this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Ms. DeLAURO. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Ms. DeLAURO. Reclaiming my time, I think we want to try to answer the gentleman's question. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Ms. DeLAURO. I remind the gentleman from Georgia that the taxpayers pay for Congress' health insurance as well. And any children that we have are covered under our health insurance. We are in a rarified air in that regard. We have health insurance, as Mr. Miller pointed out. We go to the head of the line if there is anything wrong with us. That is not the case for millions of people in this Nation. And that's what the other side of the aisle would like to continue, that millions of people will not have the same kind of health care that we in the United States Congress have. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Ms. DeLAURO. The Rehberg amendment would increase the deficit by $2 billion next year, a total of $5.5 billion over the next several years, and that is the estimate of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It increases the deficit and does not create any jobs. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Ms. DeLAURO. The Rehberg amendment increases net budget authority in the bill by $2 billion next year, a total of $5.5 billion over 10 years. It increases the deficit, and it puts the American people back in the hands of the insurance companies. Again, it's a classic bait and switch. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).