Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. The Rehberg amendment would increase net budget authority in the bill by $2 billion in fiscal year 2012--that's next year--for a total of $5.5 billion over the next several years. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes 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 yield myself 30 seconds. To the prior gentleman, I would just say you didn't listen to the people of this country; you sold them a bill of goods. You told them you were going to create jobs, you were going to reduce the deficit, and you were going to turn the economy around. You have done none of this. You have been here 6 weeks, 8 weeks; and you have not done anything. And with this amendment you will, indeed, by the CBO numbers, increase the deficit as soon as next year by over $2 billion. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Ms. DeLAURO. The chairman has argued--with all due respect to the chairman--that the amendment does not violate clause 10 of rule XXI. But that is not the point of order that I raised. The point of order was section 3(j)(3) of H. Res. 5, and I will repeat what that says. ``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.'' This clearly, clearly proposes an increase. And we have the documentation from CBO. So I am asking that this amendment be ruled out of order.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

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

Ms. DeLAURO. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. Just to make a point, it sounds from the gentlelady like what you want to do is raise the Medicare rates and cut benefits--but let me just get on with this here. How many times, as I said earlier, do we have to vote on the Affordable Care Act? This long series of ``defunding health reform'' amendments shows how far the House is straying from a serious legislative process. So far today, the House has passed no fewer than three separate, overlapping and duplicative amendments that prohibit the use of funds to carry out the Affordable Care Act. First, the House passed the Rehberg amendment: prohibiting the use of funds for this purpose by any agency funded in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. A few minutes later, the House passed an amendment by Mr. King: prohibiting the use of funds by any Federal agency for this purpose. A few minutes after that vote, the House passed another amendment by Mr. King: prohibiting funds to pay the salary of any Federal employee to implement or administer the Affordable Care Act. The majority party does not like the Affordable Care Act, and would like to cut off all funding for the act's implementation--now that much is clear--but how many times do we need to pass the same prohibition yesterday and today? Will three times be enough or will the House just keep passing more and more amendments, doing essentially the same thing until everyone on the majority's side has satisfied their urge to make clear just how opposed they are to expanding the availability of health care in this country?--which is what the Affordable Care Act is all about. Instead of this pointless debate, we should be working on what the American public wants. They want us to create jobs. They want us to get this economy going again. They want to make sure that they have jobs, that they're able to send their children to school--and yes, they would like to have health care benefits so that, when they get sick, they will be able to have the kinds of treatment that all of us in this body have by virtue of being Members of the Congress. We go to the head of the line. They can't get the same kind of care that we get. Yet, day in and day out over these last several days, we've watched our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do everything they can to deny the American public the opportunity to have the same kind of health care that Members of Congress have. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Pallone of New Jersey.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself 30 seconds. Why wouldn't we want consumers to know what they are buying so that they don't go broke, that they get the health care that they need when they are sick? Quite frankly, what this does is to help keep the big insurers honest, and that's probably why the majority has put the desires of the insurance companies and the interests of the insurance companies before the well-being of the American public. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman and rise to support his amendment. We should have a quantifiable way of finding out the impact of this continuing resolution on job creation. What else could be more important than that? There was an examination of the jobs that came out of the economic recovery program. If this continuing resolution would be enacted into law, will the unemployment rate decrease? Will wages go up for middle class families? Will this continuing resolution help to turn the economy around? I would think that the majority would welcome the opportunity to verify their claim that the continuing resolution would create jobs. Let's prove us wrong. We believe that it will destroy jobs. Prove us wrong--unless you feel that if jobs are lost, so be it. So why not have the Bureau of Labor Statistics work on these critical issues? And I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what are you afraid of? Point of Order

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Ms. DeLAURO. I would just like to remind the gentlelady that I understand she was not here, but we did debate health care in this body for approximately 18 months, so there was a very healthy and robust discussion about health care. This amendment is a further demonstration of the majority's special interest priorities as they have to do with insurance companies. It really demonstrates the hypocrisy on job creation and deficit reduction as well. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Ms. DeLAURO. In my 13 remaining seconds, to quote Mr. Garamendi here, What are the health insurance exchanges? It's called the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. We in the Congress have the benefit of enjoying a health care exchange where we can have our choice, pick the plan that suits our needs, get it at competitive rates. Why do we not want to extend this for the rest of the country? It should not just be the purview of those who serve in the United States Congress.

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

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join the many family, friends, and colleagues who have gathered to congratulate Benedict Cozzi as he retires after a career as an operating engineer and union leader that has spanned more than four decades. Ben has been a remarkable presence in Connecticut's labor movement and I, like so many others, consider myself fortunate to have benefitted from his knowledge and friendship. A native of New Haven, Connecticut, Ben entered Boston University after graduating from high school, but it would be the employment he found during his breaks from school where he would find his calling as an operating engineer and a member of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 478. He soon left Boston University and spent the next twenty years operating the heavy machinery of the trade-- bulldozers, backhoes, graders, loaders, combination machines, and cranes on construction sites throughout Connecticut. It was hard but honest work that Ben enjoyed and he also became increasingly involved with Local 478, serving as the steward on many jobs. Ben has served on Local 478's Governing Board for more thirty years. He held the positions of Treasurer, Secretary, Referral Manager, and Business Agent for New Haven and Middlesex Counties before being elected Business Manager--the union's highest elected office and a position which he has held for the last decade. Through it all, and particularly as Business Manager, Ben has fought for the rights of thousands of Connecticut operating engineers, ensuring that they had jobs to go to, fair wages, safe work environments, and secure retirement benefits. His work has held to secure the economic viability of his members and their families. Ben's leadership in the labor movement extends far beyond Local 478. He has also served as President of both the Connecticut State Building and Construction Trades Council and the Building Construction Trades Council of New Haven as well as Co-Chair of the Connecticut Construction Labor-Management Council, and Vice President of the Connecticut AFL-CIO. His expertise has also been sought out by community boards that directly impact his ,membership including the New Haven Workforce Alliance and the Construction Workforce Initiative. Ben was also asked to sit on two state boards the Workers' Compensation Advisory Board and the Second Injury Fund Advisory Board. Ben has also dedicated countless hours to community service, volunteering his time and energies on behalf of a multitude of service organizations in our community. He has served as Chairman of the Board of Easter Seals Goodwill Industries, a Board Member of the Advocacy Council of Yale-New Haven Hospital as well as the Connecticut Yankee Council of the Boy Scouts of America. When a project needs a hands-on approach, Ben is the person you turn to. He assembled a team of 300 to participate in a walk to benefit the American Heart Association, volunteers to build Hannah's Dream--a playground for children with special needs, and has been responsible for coordinating Building Trades volunteers to construct the annual Easter Seal's Fantasy of Lights at Light House Point during the Christmas season. The impact of his community service on the lives of others is incalculable and we cannot thank him enough for all of the generosity and compassion he has shown to those in need. It is difficult to imagine what Local 478, the Building Trades, and our community will be like without Ben Cozzi. He has been a fixture in the labor movement and in our community for decades. Today, as he celebrates his retirement, I am proud to have this opportunity to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to him for all of his good work. I have no doubt that even in his retirement, Ben Cozzi will continue to stay involved and make a difference. I extend my very best wishes to him, his wife, Elizabeth; his children, Jennifer and Christopher; as well as their grandchildren, John, Isabelle, and Diego for many more years of health and happiness.

Ms. DeLAURO

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

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. We were told by our Republican colleagues that they were here to create jobs, to turn the economy around, and to reduce the deficit, but here they go again--spending time on an extreme, divisive social agenda. Mr. Chairman, in a breathtaking and radical step, the Republican majority has already proposed to eliminate title X funding, which has connected millions of American women to health care since 1970. Now this amendment by the Congressman from Indiana continues the same pattern of contempt for women's health and basic rights. With this amendment, my colleague is trying to specifically exclude one provider of legal health services, Planned Parenthood, from Federal funds. This amendment has nothing to do with the deficit. It is an attack by one Congressman on one organization, and it needlessly puts the lives of American women in danger. Planned Parenthood carries out millions of preventative and primary care services every year. This includes immunizations and routine gynecological exams. This includes nearly 1 million screenings for cervical cancer, identifying more than 90,000 women who are at risk for cervical cancer. Every year, cervical cancer kills 4,000 women. If you can identify the risk early on, then you can save a woman's life. Planned Parenthood cares for more than 3 million American men and women every year. In my State of Connecticut, more than 62,000 men and women benefit from health care at Planned Parenthood clinics. Over 70 percent of those patients have a family income of less than $16,245 a year. In other words, this is the only way they can afford care. In fact, 6 of every 10 women who seek care at a title X-funded center like Planned Parenthood consider it their main source of medical care. The vital preventative care and family planning services supported by title X save money and save lives. For every dollar invested in title X, taxpayers save just under $4. But under the guise of budget cutting, the new majority is launching an assault on title X and endangering women's health. Understand their purpose. Understand it clearly: to impose their traditional view of a woman's role. This legislation is not about the Federal funding of abortion. Federal funds, including title X, are already banned from going towards abortion services under the Hyde amendment. Rather, much like the repeal of health care reform, this is part of a Republican agenda to force women back into traditional roles with limited opportunities. This amendment will cause more than 3 million people to lose access to basic primary and preventative health care. I am a cancer survivor. I am a cancer survivor who is only here because my cancer was found at stage 1. I can tell you that losing access to screening will cost lives and will kill women in this country. It comes down to this: The proposals to eliminate title X and to defund Planned Parenthood are bad policies that hurt women and do nothing for our economy. In fact, it costs money. This Republican Congress is trying to turn back the clock on women's health and to turn back the clock on women's basic rights. They are taking us back to a day when family planning was not a given opportunity for women. Instead of making it harder for women to get health care, we should be standing up for these vital services. I encourage and urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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